Subject: RE: Names and emails in charters - a different sighting

From: "Beadles, Mark A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 22:09:31 -0000

>Although the NASREQ WG has been through several incarnations, I 
>don't believe any of the previous ones produced an RFC.

Correct.  There should be 3 NASREQ RFCs, all from its most recent life:

Network Access Servers Requirements: Extended RADIUS Practices (RFC 2882)
Network Access Server Requirements Next Generation (NASREQNG)NAS Model (RFC
2881)
Criteria for Evaluating Network Access Server Protocols (RFC 3169)

Probably the confusion resulted because NASREQ has kicked off work that
ended up as protocol work in e.g. the RADIUS WG.

+ Mark Anthony Beadles  + [email-masked] +
+       Chief Architect + SmartPipes, Inc.        +
+   Vox 614.923.5657    +     Fax 614.923.6299    +

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mitton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, 03 December 2002 16:31
To: Steve Coya; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Names and emails in charters - a different sighting

Steve,
         perhaps someone might want to figure out why RFC 2058 appeared as 
an output of the NASREQ WG sometime this last year.

         RFC 2058 is the original (not current) RADIUS spec from Jan 97.  I 
believe it was an output of the RADIUS WG.

         Although the NASREQ WG has been through several incarnations, I 
don't believe any of the previous ones produced an RFC.

Dave.

At 12/3/2002 03:31 PM -0500, Steve Coya wrote:

>Greetings,
>
>Some of you have seen the instances where the charter displayed an 
>incorrect name with the correct email, or the reverse. We identified 
>the culprit and RIPPED IT RIGHT OUT OF THE APPLICATION. Of course, the 
>problem was architectural and implemented via a database table, so it 
>was not an easy fix.
>
>We went through the various modules and scripts, and believe we have 
>modified all instances where the use of the "other" database was 
>apparent. Reality warns us we missed something somewhere.
>
>And so, please check your individual web pages and calmly let us
>(ietf-action) know where there are inaccuracies and mismatches. We will 
>attempt to correct as swiftly as possible.
>
>Above all, be patient and understanding... we are approaching the 
>holiday season ;-)
>
>
>Steve