Additional Values for the NAS-Port-Type Attribute
RFC 4603
Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, <iana@iana.org>, ietf-announce@ietf.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.