Skip to main content

RADIUS EXTensions
charter-ietf-radext-07

Yes

Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw

No Objection

Erik Kline
John Scudder
Murray Kucherawy
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Éric Vyncke
(Alvaro Retana)
(Andrew Alston)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06-03 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

Paul Wouters
Yes
Roman Danyliw
(was Block) Yes
Erik Kline
No Objection
John Scudder
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06-03) Not sent

                            
Andrew Alston Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06-03) Not sent

                            
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2023-02-28 for -06-03) Sent
# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-radext-06-03

CC @larseggert

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### "RADIUS.", paragraph 0
```
- RADIUS. Any non-backwards compatibility changes with existing RADIUS
-                          ^        - ^^^
+ RADIUS. Any non-backwards-compatible changes with existing RADIUS
+                          ^         ^
```

#### Section 5080, paragraph 0
```
- be compatible with RFC 3539, with any non-backwards compatibility changes
-                                                    ^        - ^^^
+ be compatible with RFC 3539, with any non-backwards-compatible changes
+                                                    ^         ^
```

#### Section 5080, paragraph 1
```
- The WG will review its existing RFCs' document track categories and
- where necessary or useful change document tracks, with minor changes in
-                                 ^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^
+ The WG will review the standards levels of existing RFCs and,
+ where necessary or useful, propose changes to those levels, with minor changes in
+                          +++++++++       ^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```

#### Section 5080, paragraph 5
```
- - Bring RFC 6614 (RADIUS/TLS), and RFC 7360 (RADIUS/DTLS) to
+ - Bring RFC 6614 (RADIUS/TLS), and RFC 7360 (RADIUS/DTLS) to the
+                                                             ++++
```

#### Section 5080, paragraph 8
```
- - Improve operations for multi-hop RADIUS networks: e.g. loop detection
-                                                   ^
- and prevention, a multi-hop Status-Server equivalent with ability to
-               ^ ^
+ - Improve operations for multi-hop RADIUS networks, e.g., loop detection
+                                                   ^     +
+ and prevention. A multi-hop Status-Server equivalent with ability to
+               ^ ^
```

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool