Additional Values for the NAS-Port-Type Attribute
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: RFC Editor <email@example.com> Cc: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-zorn-radius-port-type-05.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Additional Values for the NAS-Port-Type Attribute' <draft-zorn-radius-port-type-05.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12910&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Dan Romascanu. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-port-type-05.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Technical Summary This document defines a set of new values for the NAS-Port-Type RADIUS Attribute. Working Group Summary This is not a WG document, but an independent submission via RFC-Editor. The AAA Doctors group and RADEXT WG chairs have been consulted if this work conflicts with current IETF work. Protocol Quality AAA-doctors conclude: This document simply requires Designated Expert Review of the port type values prior to IANA assignment. It appears that the new port type values are sufficiently well defined by reference to existing RFCs. Note to RFC Editor Pls insert IESG note number 2 of section 4 in RFC3932. IESG Note This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information.