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? If so, then I may see your point. RFC 5226 does permit vendor-specific registries. 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 Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
