Subject: [radext] FW: draft-ietf-radext-radsec-10.txt updated by Amanda Baber

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:56:39 +0100

Document editors,

What is your opinion? At least the text near the port assignment should
point to the future RFC. 

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: DraftTracker Mail System [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:59 AM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Subject: draft-ietf-radext-radsec-10.txt updated by Amanda Baber

Please DO NOT reply on this email.

I-D: draft-ietf-radext-radsec-10.txt
ID Tracker URL:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/idtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=
17332&rfc_flag=0
 A new comment added by Amanda Baber

IANA has a question about this document.

IANA recognizes that previously, TCP port 2083 was already assigned by
IANA for RadSec, an early implementation of RADIUS/TLS. We note that one
of the authors is the assignee and contact for that port number. Our
question is: do the authors want to make any changes to the registration
of port 2083 upon approval of this document (description, assignee,
contact, reference)?

_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext