>>>>> "Alan" == Alan DeKok <[email protected]> writes:
Alan> Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> [BA] Given that the spec would create an incompatible variant of
>> RADIUS, I'd say that the situation is pretty serious, and that a
>> document clarifying the encoding of the NAI within RADIUS is
>> critical.
Alan> OK. Can we get support for this position on the various
Alan> mailing lists?
Alan> I suspect the abfab people want to work within the existing
Alan> RADIUS framework. The main difficulty is that the only NAI
Alan> specification is 4282. If abfab has a normative dependency on
Alan> an NAI spec, then publishing 4282bis quickly is a good idea.
4282 is currently a normative dependency of draft-ietf-abfab-gss-eap.
Alan> The draft describes existing practices, and has no new
Alan> recommendations in it. So it *should* be non-controversial.
Uh. Good luck with that.
I'd definitely want to understand the internationalization story before
supporting a new NAI spec.
I understand your concerns with 4282.
I suspect others will feel similarly. So, even if we all end up
agreeing with you in the end, I'd expect it to be a careful
process--definitely far beyond what I hope it takes to get
draft-ietf-abfab-gss-eap approved.
Now, at least for ABFAB implementations, I don't think it's a big
deal. I think we can leave all the processing up to the final AAA
server.
I think i18n is a topic we really need to discuss for ABFAB in IETF 82.
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
