I support Roman's block here for the reasons he states.

The statement "support the work of those organizations":

- Inverts the normal relationship between the IETF and external bodies 
(the IETF produces standards; others may choose to adopt them)

- Could be used to justify work items that lack genuine IETF community 
consensus by claiming external demand

- Is inconsistent with RFC 2026 and BCP 9 principles of individual participation

Secondly, none of the work items specifies an intended publication type
(PS, BCP, Informational, or Experimental). Eric noted he was about to
block on this issue. You could say I am enabling that.

Finally, the four multi-hop work items, the roaming best-practices document, and the minor extensions 
work all require different tracks (likely PS for protocol extensions, BCP for best practices).

** Working on behalf of other organizations.  The charter says:

“The radext WG will publish minor RADIUS extensions,
best-practices documents and clarifications, as needed to support the work of those organizations.”

“Define and publish minor extensions to RADIUS, such as new attribute definitions, needed by external organizations or other IETF WGs.”

I’m not sure what the inclusion of these statements is intended to do regarding scope or process, but it was unexpected and seems to suggest an alternative to the current standards process of consensus and participation as individuals.

-- The introductory text says that this WG will focus on maintenance of RADIUS.  The above text caveats working on extensions on behalf of others in the first clause.  Is this suggesting that WG couldn’t self-initiate extension work?

-- How is the standards process guiding the WG changed at all by the fact that an outside group needs an extension?  

-- How are these organizations given standing to ask for extension (e.g., who gets to ask since this is a scope criteria)?  Typically, a decision to do work (e.g., an extension) and publish is done via WG (and then later IETF) consensus.  What’s the alternative being proposed here?  Even if the request came from another IETF WG, the same procedures would apply (i.e., there would need to be consensus in RADEXT to do the work).

Could the intended scope of work be written as follows:

OLD
“The radext WG will publish minor RADIUS extensions,
best-practices documents and clarifications, as needed to support the work of those organizations.”

NEW
The radext WG will publish minor RADIUS extensions,
best-practices documents and clarifications.

OLD
“Define and publish minor extensions to RADIUS, such as new attribute definitions, needed by external organizations or other IETF WGs.”

NEW
Define and publish minor extensions to RADIUS.