Skip to main content

Additional Values for the NAS-Port-Type Attribute
RFC 4603

Yes

(Bert Wijnen)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Cullen Jennings)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert
No Objection
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss) Yes
Yes ()

                            
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2006-03-30)
Since I'm told this is not proprietary, the sentence
  The values given have already been implemented by Cisco Systems.
(end of section 3.1) is inappropriate and amounts to condoning the use
of unassigned values. I would suggest
  The values given have already been implemented by at least one vendor
  without assignment by IANA.

Also, the first two sentences in section 3 have no logical place
in this document.
  This section explains the criteria to be used by the IANA for
  assignment of numbers within namespaces defined within this document.
  The "Expert Review" policy is used here with the meaning defined in
  BCP 26 [RFC2434].
The document doesn't define a namespace and doesn't define a policy.
I would simply delete those sentences.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2006-03-30)
Section 1 and 3.1 contain largely the same text. Are both copies really necessary? Consider removing 3.1 when addressing Brain's comment WRT vendor naming (including his suggested text change in section 1).
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()