Appeal against IESG decision for draft-chiba-radius-dynamic-authorization-05.txt (Glen Zorn; 2003-01-15) - 2003-01-15
Response - 2003-02-08

From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <chair@ietf.org>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@acm.org>
cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org,
IETF-Announce:;
Subject: Response to Glen Zorn appeal
Date: February 8, 2003

To: Glen Zorn
Cc: RFC Editor, IETF-Announce
Subject: Response to appeal on draft-chiba-radius-dynamic-authorization

On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, Glen Zorn <gwz@cisco.com> wrote:

This is to request that the IESG review and reverse its decision to
approve the document draft-chiba-radius-dynamic-authorization-05.txt for
publication as an Informational RFC. This draft allocates new RADIUS
packet type codes (40-45). RFC 2865 states in section 6.2, however, that
"Because a new Packet Type has considerable impact on interoperability, a
new Packet Type Code requires Standards Action...". I suppose that a case
could be made for "grandfathering in" these type codes if they had been
registered w/IANA under either RFC 2058 or RFC 2138 (both of which lacked
an IANA Considerations section), but the type codes in question have
apparently never been registered with IANA at all (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types).

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Glen,

the IESG has considered this matter, and concluded that you are right.
Under the current rules, formal allocation of RADIUS packet type codes can
only be done by standards action, which this document clearly is not.

There are multiple possible actions:

  • Reissue the document as Standards Track
  • Change the rules for RADIUS type codes so that they don't require
    Standards Action (this would be a standards action, of course)
  • Issue a specific variance for allocating just this set of codes without
    declaring the defining document a standard (RFC 2026 section 9).

The IESG will work with the proposers of this document to figure out what
the best thing for the Internet community is.

Until we've figured that out, we are hereby requesting the RFC Editor to
not publish draft-chiba-radius-dynamic-authorization-05.txt as an RFC.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention!

                 Harald Alvestrand
                  For the IESG