Subject: Re: [radext] #176 (nai): draft-ietf-radext-nai-05: is the term *Network Access* Identifier still appropriate?

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:54:00 +0200

Hi,

> I do not have technical reasoning for my position here but.. Personally
> I would not start renaming NAI. Quite a few documents refer to RFC4282
> and implicitly to this document and it would be confusing to change the
> name this late. IMHO what matters here is the functionality & technical
> corrections the I-D provides. If we need to finetune Section 1.1.
> terminology, let's do it.

That's fine - an update to section 1.1 could state that the name is
there for historic reasons, but that the scope is positively meant to be
wider than Network.

There was only this one opinion on the list - so maybe it's worth asking
the room how folks feel during the IETF90 meeting? I won't be there,
unfortunately ...

Greetings,

Stefan

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473

PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the
recipient's key is known to me

http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:07:05 -0400

>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan Winter <[email-masked]> writes:

    Stefan> There was only this one opinion on the list - so maybe it's
    Stefan> worth asking the room how folks feel during the IETF90
    Stefan> meeting? I won't be there, unfortunately ...

I will not make the meeting.
I do not support the rename.
If we do want to rename, I recommend renaming it to "networked Access
Identifier," emphasizing that the identifier is networked, rather than
the access to a network.
I think that's contrived and I've seen significant damage result from
trying to rename thing.
Mumble mumble NAT66