Sam Hartman wrote: > 4282 is currently a normative dependency of draft-ietf-abfab-gss-eap.
That's a problem. As Bernard said, 4282 mandates behavior which *no one* implements. Anyone implementing 4282 will be incompatible with all known RADIUS systems. I think the goal of abfab is to be interoperable with existing RADIUS roaming systems. > I'd definitely want to understand the internationalization story before > supporting a new NAI spec. Short story: AAA systems shouldn't mangle the NAI. 4282 demands NAI mangling, which is bad. > 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. Then we have a problem. The draft conflicts with real-world practice. > 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. That's pretty much what is said by 4282bis. > I think i18n is a topic we really need to discuss for ABFAB in IETF 82. And interoperability with RADIUS. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
