The changes related to 4014 are really minor as just changes text to use IANA
registry instead of list in original 4014. So not sure why this is really that
significant.
My only concern is that the βnewβ text references section 8.3 of this new draft
and so the replacement text is a bit βoddβ? It is not referring to section 8.3
in 4014.
NEW:
To avoid dependencies between the address allocation and other
state information between the RADIUS server and the DHCP server,
the DHCP relay agent SHOULD include only the attributes in the
IANA-maintained registry (Section 8.3) in an instance of the
RADIUS Attributes suboption.
I wonder if using the following might be better instead of referencing section
8.3 from the new document? (In both βnewβ sections.)
NEW:
To avoid dependencies between the address allocation and other
state information between the RADIUS server and the DHCP server,
the DHCP relay agent SHOULD include only the attributes in the
IANA-maintained sub-registry entitled "RADIUS Attributes Permitted
in RADIUS Attributes Sub-option" in the "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol (DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters" registry
[BOOTP]
IANA-maintained registry in an instance of the
RADIUS Attributes suboption.
But perhaps this is not a concern others have?
- Bernie (from iPad)
> On Nov 11, 2022, at 3:13 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ο»Ώ
> I am closing this WG LC. While I am glad that this work received a number of
> reviews both in opsawg and from other WGs, I would have still like to see
> more comments around the incorporation of the 4014 changes.
>
> We will now look to find a shepherd for this doc. Authors, if you know of
> someone that may want to act in that role, let us know.
>
> Joe
>
> From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>
> Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 10:11
> To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: π WG LC: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS [EXTENDED]
>
> After discussion with dhcwg, this document has taken on work from another
> document that updates RFC 4014. I want to make sure that opsawg has had a
> chance to review the extended scope and text.
>
> The WG LC is extended to end on November 3, 2022. To those in the WG that
> have already commented, please review revision -05 or later and share your
> thoughts on list.
>
> Joe
>
> From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> <[email protected]>
> Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:43
> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: [OPSAWG] π WG LC: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS
>
> Hello, WG. While this work was recently adopted, there was a considerable
> amount of discussion and work put in to address issues and stabilize the
> spec. The authors feel it has reached a steady state and is ready for WG LC.
> Based on my read of the discussion threads, it does appear the major issues
> have been addressed.
>
> Therefore, this serves as the start of a two week WG LC for
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns/.
> Please provide your comments and/or support for the current spec on-list
> prior to October 27.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
