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 |