Subject: [precis] Call for review: draft-ietf-radext-nai-03

From: Yoshiro YONEYA <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:51:19 +0900

Dear WG members,

The RADEXT WG has started 2 weeks WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-nai-03 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-nai/> on Jun 4th. 
The document is for updateing RFC 4282 (The Network Access Identifier) 
and addressing internationalization of identifiers.  The document isn't 
using PRECIS Framework at now, but it can be a PRECIS customer candidate.

Would someone please volunteer to review the document and give your 
comments to RADEXT mailing list <[email-masked]> in conjunction with 
this mailing list?  Your comments will help progress both of RADEXT WG 
and our WG.

Regards,

-- 
Yoshiro YONEYA as co-chair <[email-masked]>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:09:39 +0100

On 04/06/2013 06:51, Yoshiro YONEYA wrote:
> comments to RADEXT mailing list<[email-masked]>  in conjunction with
Hi,
I've reviewed the document yesterday. What kind of comments do you think 
should be reported to [email-masked]? As you pointed out, it is not 
using the PRECIS framework.

Best Regards,
Alexey

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:17:52 -0400

> using the PRECIS framework.

  Author here.  Does it make sense from an i18n perspective?  Does it
incorrectly describe i18n issues, concepts, practices, etc.?  Can it be
improved?

  The document tries to standardize a user identifier which is 118n
compatible.  The goal (eventually) is to suggest that protocols should
use one identifier format, instead of each protocol inventing it's own.

  For example, it's possible now to have one "authentication" session in
802.1X contain 3 independent identifiers.  They don't even have to be in
the same character encoding.  This makes it difficult to determine just
who the heck is being authenticated.

  Alan DeKok.