Bernard Aboba [mailto:[email protected]] writes:
Dan Harkins said:
> draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-provisioning claims a reference to RFC 5226
> but nowhere in that RFC can I find description of the following label
> for an initial assignment of repository values:
>
> "allocated for management by Cisco"
>
> yet the draft instructs IANA to set aside values 11-63 for just that
> purpose. I think that's very inappropriate. Not only is it telling IANA
> to cede some of its authority to a large multinational corporation but
> it is decidedly *NOT* documenting existing use! If this whole exercise
> is to document existing use then where are the specifications for these
> PAC attribute types?
Are you saying that the registry of "EAP-FAST PAC Attribute Types" also
relates to RFC 4507, which is a standards track document?
AFAICT, the two seem unrelated.
If so, then I may see your point. RFC 5226 does permit vendor-specific
registries.
I can't find this in 5226. Are you perhaps referring to Private Use
registries? If so, RFC 5226 has this to say about them:
Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and
purpose defined by the local site. No attempt is made to
prevent multiple sites from using the same value in
different (and incompatible) ways. There is no need for
IANA to review such assignments (since IANA does not record
them) and assignments are not generally useful for broad
interoperability. It is the responsibility of the sites
making use of the Private Use range to ensure that no
conflicts occur (within the intended scope of use).
Essentially, Private Use numbers are neither allocated nor recorded by IANA
& there is certainly no guarantee that any two sites (or vendors) won't use
the same number for different purposes or vice-versa. Although it's not
completely clear from the document, draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-provisioning
appears to be setting up registries managed by IANA with a policy of
Specification Required for everybody but Cisco; Cisco would simply allocate
numbers out of their reserved range internally and use IANA to promulgate
their decisions to the outer world. I can't find anything in RFC 5226 that
even remotely suggests that this is permissible behavior.
However, if the registry relates to a Standards Track protocol under
IETF change control, then restricting vendor-specific extensions to only one
vendor would be highly unusual.
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
