Skip to main content

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

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
04 (System) Notify list changed from gwz@cisco.com to (None)
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Jari Arkko
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Brian Carpenter
2006-08-09
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2006-08-09
04 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4603' added by Amy Vezza
2006-07-28
04 (System) RFC published
2006-04-19
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-04-06
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-04-06
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-04-06
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-04-04
04 (System) New version available: draft-zorn-radius-port-type-04.txt
2006-03-31
04 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-03-30
2006-03-30
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-03-30
04 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot comment]
Since I'm told this is not proprietary, the sentence
  The values given have already been implemented by Cisco Systems.
(end of section …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2006-03-30
04 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Brian Carpenter
2006-03-30
04 Michelle Cotton
IANA Follow-up Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will register the following values for RADIUS Attribute 61, NAS-Port-Type registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types

30 …
IANA Follow-up Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will register the following values for RADIUS Attribute 61, NAS-Port-Type registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types

30 PPPoA (PPP over ATM [RFC3336])
31 PPPoEoA (PPP over Ethernet [RFC2516] over ATM)
32 PPPoEoE (PPP over Ethernet [RFC2516] over Ethernet
33 PPPoEoVLAN (PPP over Ethernet [RFC2516] over VLAN)
34 PPPoEoQinQ (PPP over Ethernet [RFC2516] over IEEE 802.1QinQ)
2006-03-30
04 Mark Townsley
[Ballot comment]
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 …
[Ballot comment]
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).
2006-03-30
04 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mark Townsley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Mark Townsley
2006-03-30
04 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley
2006-03-30
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Jari Arkko
2006-03-29
04 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
The reader may confuse Section 3 to be a new definition of
the RADIUS IANA rule when it says "This section explains the …
[Ballot discuss]
The reader may confuse Section 3 to be a new definition of
the RADIUS IANA rule when it says "This section explains the
criteria to be used by the IANA for assignment of numbers within
namespaces defined within this document." And the document does
not define any new namespaces, it allocates values within an
existing namespace.

I would suggest replacing Section 3 with the following text:

    3. IANA Considerations

    This document is intended to act as a request for allocation of
    the attribute values listed in Section 2 from the appropriate
    registry [RADTYP], based on IANA allocation rules specified in RFC
    3575
. Suggested values are provided in Section 2.

Or something along those lines. Otherwise I think the document is
fine and should get a Yes from me if the IANA part is clarified.
2006-03-29
04 Michelle Cotton
IANA Comments:
Clarification is needed (similar to Brian's comments)
We can't find any registry to be created.  It appears this document is requesting a attributes …
IANA Comments:
Clarification is needed (similar to Brian's comments)
We can't find any registry to be created.  It appears this document is requesting a attributes value registry to be added to the following:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types, however we can't find any details other than it will be an expert review registry.
2006-03-29
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Jari Arkko by Jari Arkko
2006-03-29
04 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot discuss]
Is this proprietary? If yes, title should mention Cisco. If no, the sentence
  The values given have already been implemented by Cisco …
[Ballot discuss]
Is this proprietary? If yes, title should mention Cisco. If no, 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.
2006-03-29
04 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot discuss]
Is this proprietary? If yes, title should mention Cisco. If no, the sentence
  The values given have already been implemented by Cisco …
[Ballot discuss]
Is this proprietary? If yes, title should mention Cisco. If no, 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.

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.
2006-03-29
04 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter
2006-03-28
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings by Cullen Jennings
2006-03-28
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2006-03-28
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu by Dan Romascanu
2006-03-27
04 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault by Lisa Dusseault
2006-03-27
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert by Lars Eggert
2006-03-26
04 Dan Romascanu Shepherding AD has been changed to Dan Romascanu from Bert Wijnen
2006-03-26
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund by Magnus Westerlund
2006-03-21
04 Bert Wijnen State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Bert Wijnen
2006-03-21
04 Bert Wijnen Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-03-30 by Bert Wijnen
2006-03-21
04 Bert Wijnen Area acronymn has been changed to ops from gen
2006-03-21
04 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen
2006-03-21
04 Bert Wijnen Ballot has been issued by Bert Wijnen
2006-03-21
04 Bert Wijnen Created "Approve" ballot
2006-03-21
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2006-03-21
04 (System) Last call text was added
2006-03-21
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-03-21
04 Bert Wijnen State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Bert Wijnen
2006-03-21
04 Bert Wijnen Area acronymn has been changed to ops from gen
2006-03-17
04 David Kessens Shepherding AD has been changed to Bert Wijnen from David Kessens
2006-03-17
04 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2006-03-06
03 (System) New version available: draft-zorn-radius-port-type-03.txt
2006-02-22
02 (System) New version available: draft-zorn-radius-port-type-02.txt
2005-11-10
01 (System) New version available: draft-zorn-radius-port-type-01.txt
2005-02-15
00 (System) New version available: draft-zorn-radius-port-type-00.txt