Subject: RE: [Isms] no wg meeting in vancouver

From: "David B. Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:57:40 -0400

Juergen Schoenwaelder writes...

> My current thinking is that the ISMS working group does not need to
> meet in Vancouver.

Given the lack of in-depth technical issues discussed at the last meeting, I
think this is reasonable.

> The core ISMS specifications have hopefully been delivered to the IESG
> well before the Vancouver meeting. Since the Radius document seems to
> be well on its way as well, I do not think that we need a face-to-face
> meeting in Vancouver.

Perhaps we should initiate a WGLC on the RADIUS document to formally elicit
some comments?

> I believe we can very well resolve any remaining
> issues and the remaining charter items via the mailing list.

Very likely.

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: "David B. Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:11:21 -0400

David B. Nelson writes...

> > The core ISMS specifications have hopefully been delivered to the
> > IESG well before the Vancouver meeting. Since the Radius document
> > seems to be well on its way as well, I do not think that we need a
> > face-to-face meeting in Vancouver.
> 
> Perhaps we should initiate a WGLC on the RADIUS document to formally
> elicit some comments?

Hello?

Following up on my previous post, I'd like to get active review of the ISMS
RADIUS Usage document
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isms-radius-usage-00.txt),
even if we are not ready to formally call for WGLC.

The RADEXT document
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorizat
ion-00.txt) that defines the RADIUS attributes used by our draft here ISMS
is in WGLC in RADEXT, so it would be good to have some review of our ISMS
RADIUS draft before the RADEXT document is sent to the IESG.

Thanks!