Dear Ops and Management Area WG, There have been a number of great suggestions on where to post this document (Thanks Stefan!). I'm now emailing [email protected] and cc'ing [email protected].
The draft is posted here... https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-massameno-radius-lb-00 Do I need an official IETF sponsor? Would it help to try and get a vendor interested in implementing the protocol? Cisco is our primary vendor at Yale University. I was wondering if there is anyone on either of these working groups that communicates with Cisco people on a regular basis? Thank you for your help. --Dan -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Winter <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 01:52 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>; Massameno, Dan <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; OpsAWG-Chairs <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: RADIUS Extension, Getting Started Hello Joe, thanks for reaching out. RADEXT is dormant since a number of years already. I'm afraid if you were to send the document that way, you would get little to no review. I think the best way forward is to take this to OPSAWG and send a mail to radext about the draft just in case. Greetings, Stefan Winter Am 30.06.20 um 17:21 schrieb Joe Clarke (jclarke): > Thanks, Dan. I’m also copying the radext-chairs to get their perspective on > this. > > Joe > >> On Jun 30, 2020, at 11:03, Massameno, Dan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Warren, >> >> I have the RADIUS extension draft now posted: >> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftoo >> ls.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-massameno-radius-lb-00&data=02%7C01%7C >> dan.massameno%40yale.edu%7Cc0b3c01a3a9d44d004c308d81f152ef2%7Cdd8cbeb >> b21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637293523139392341&sdata=7dOp >> ZmU5Xsj2tusf2Fiukqv1oxd2b8uL4Po%2BI04hw%2BE%3D&reserved=0 >> >> Abstract >> >> This document describes a method for a Network Access Server (NAS) to >> dynamically discover all available RADIUS servers. It defines a new >> message type within the STATUS-SERVER message, which is requested by >> the NAS and provided by the RADIUS server. The NAS is then able to >> load balance its RADIUS messages across multiple RADIUS servers based >> on priority and weight supplied by the initial server. >> >> Base on the draft do you have a better idea on if this should be posed into >> RADEXT or OPSAWG? I must admit I am not familiar with either of these >> groups. >> >> Thank you for your help. >> >> --Dan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Massameno, Dan >> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 10:56 >> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> >> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; >> OpsAWG-Chairs <[email protected]>; Warren Kumari >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: RADIUS Extension, Getting Started >> >> Rob, >> Thank you and the extended team for all your help. I have uploaded >> draft-massameno-radius-lb to the I-D Submission system. Also attached is >> the PDF version. >> >> I'm very much interested in seeing how the process goes from here. Please >> let me know how I may be of assistance. >> >> --Dan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Warren Kumari <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 18:00 >> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> >> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>; Massameno, Dan >> <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; OpsAWG-Chairs >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: RADIUS Extension, Getting Started >> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:06 PM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi Ben, >>> >>> Good catch re Radext, copying Warren. Warren, the question is whether >>> RADEXT is still active and taking new work, or whether it should go to >>> OPSAWG instead? I have a slight concern whether we will get enough >>> interest for this work in OPSAWG ... >> Without knowing a bunch more about the draft I don't really think that this >> is a question that I can usefully weigh in on. >> >> If it is an extension to RADIUS/is heavily RADIUS focused, then RADEXT is >> probably the right place -- but, it could always be aimed at RADEXT (put >> -radext- in the draft name), but we can try and stir up some interest in >> OPSAWG. If it turns out that it is RADIUS related, and RADEXT doesn't want >> to pick it up and run with it, perhaps that's a strong signal that RADEXT >> should be closed...? >> >> W >> >>> Regards, >>> Rob >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: 21 June 2020 03:42 >>>> To: Massameno, Dan <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw >>>> <[email protected]>; OpsAWG-Chairs <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: RADIUS Extension, Getting Started >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:58:12PM +0000, Massameno, Dan wrote: >>>>> Rob, >>>>> This sounds great. With the links provided by Roman I am >>>>> reviewing the >>>> literature to make sure my draft has everything it needs to start >>>> the process. I found references to xml2rfc and kramdown, which I >>>> also want to run it through. >>>>> Thank you for your help. I would be happy to have someone take a >>>>> look >>>> before it's posted. As soon as I have it formatted correctly I'll >>>> send it over. Is there someone in particular I should send it to? >>>> >>>> I would recommend uploading the internet-draft to the IETF >>>> datatracker at >>>> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fd >>>> a >>>> tatracker.ietf.org%2Fsubmit%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdan.massameno%40y >>>> a >>>> le.edu%7C112cacc6da6a40e6560708d816f7c0b9%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3 >>>> e >>>> 87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637284600637313249&sdata=EkkSwHAB%2BAV3XQDz%2FsYJMsBLiKymz6n4BROVWGbg7Yg%3D&reserved=0 >>>> and then sending a link to that document to both [email protected] >>>> and [email protected]. It's also okay to skip the first part and >>>> send the document itself to those addresses. >>>> >>>> The radext (RADIUS Extensions) working group is not very active at >>>> the moment, which is why I agree with the others' recommendations >>>> to ask the OPSAWG working group chairs' advice as well. >>>> >>>> Hope this helps, >>>> >>>> Ben >> >> >> -- >> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in >> the first place. >> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of >> pants. >> ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
