Subject: Summary of RADEXT WG Last Call on Status-Server Document

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:53:11 -0800

RADEXT WG last call on the Status-Server document was announced on November 3, 2008
(see http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2008/msg00721.html) and concluded on November 25, 2008. 
 
The following issues were raised during WG last call:

Issue 283
No Discussion
Technical
Status-Server Comments
Greg Weber

Issue 285
Pending
Technical
Question
Alan DeKok

Issue 288
Pending
Technical
Review
Stig Venaas

Issue 289
No Discussion
Editorial
Editorial Comments
Stig Venaas
Overall, as was discussed during IETF 73, it should be understood that the goal of this document is to document the
existing Status-Server protocol (which was first developed by Ascend Communications in the mid-1990s).  Therefore
inclusion of non-implemented functionality in this document is out of scope. 

 EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:41:04 +0100

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Issue 283 	No Discussion 	Technical 	Status-Server Comments
> <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 283> 	Greg
> Weber

  I have responded to that issue.  The only remaining question for the
WG is whether or not Section 5 is appropriate for the document.  If not,
it can be deleted in its entirety.

> Issue 285 	Pending 	Technical 	Question
> <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 285> 	Alan
> DeKok <mailto:[email-masked]>

  The text on CoA has been removed as per WG consensus.  This issue
should be now closed.

> Issue 288 	Pending 	Technical 	Review
> <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 288> 	Stig
> Venaas <mailto:[email-masked]>

  I have updated the document as per comments form the review, with
additional text as per David Nelson.

> Issue 289 	No Discussion 	Editorial 	Editorial Comments
> <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 289> 	Stig
> Venaas <mailto:[email-masked]>

  I responded in a message on December 8.  The comments are mostly
editorial, and the document has been updated as per the review.  The one
change suggested that was not made was changing "packet" to "message".
RFC 2865, etc. use "packet", so that term is used here for consistency.

> Overall, as was discussed during IETF 73, it should be understood that
> the goal of this document is to document the
> existing Status-Server protocol (which was first developed by Ascend
> Communications in the mid-1990s).  Therefore

  The CoA text has been deleted.

  I've also updated the document as per editorial reviews from Alfred.

  I will submit an updated document shortly.

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>