Hi Bernard, "odd" isn't the word I'd use to describe it. Audacious and hubristic are a bit more like it.
These aren't "private use" or vendor-specific attributes. Let's be very specific about that. I don't understand your mention of modifying RFC 4507. Is this yet another problem with these drafts? Dan. On Wed, February 4, 2009 1:19 pm, Bernard Aboba wrote: > 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? > > It would appear that the registry of "EAP-FAST PAC Attribute Types" > relates > to a Standard Track document, RFC 4507, although the document itself > doesn't indicate that it updates RFC 4507. > > RFC 5226 does permit vendor-specific registries, although it is somewhat > odd to > enable vendor extensions for only one vendor, particularly if this does > relate to > an IETF standards track document (which would imply IETF change control, > no?) > > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
