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)?

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:48:46 +0100

Hi Dan,

this is what I just replied to Amanda:

-------------

having Mike as one of the co-authors as assignee and contact looks just
fine to me. Looking at the service-names registry, it looks like the
protocol does not have anything in the "reference" column yet.

It would make sense to add a reference to the RFC number once issued.

It also might make sense to add text to the "Assignment notes" section,
detailing that there has been previous use of that port number, which is
compatible to the use in the RFC-to-be.

I will issue a new -11 revision taking all LC comments, including this
one, into account, and will propose corresponding text in the "IANA
Considerations" section.

---------------

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

On 18.01.12 13:56, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:48:46 +0100

Hi Dan,

-------------

---------------

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:06:24 +0100

Hi,

my working copy of the document now contains this text:

7.  IANA Considerations

   No new RADIUS attributes or packet codes are defined.  IANA is
   requested to update the already-assigned TCP port number 2083 in the
   following ways:

   o  Reference: list the RFC number of this document as the reference

   o  Assignment Notes: add the text "The TCP port 2083 was already
      previously assigned by IANA for "RadSec", an early implementation
      of RADIUS/TLS, prior to issuance of this RFC.  This early
      implementation can be configured to be compatible to RADIUS/TLS as
      specified by the IETF.  See RFC (RFC number of this document),
      Appendix A for details."

If there are no objections, this will go into -11 and should address the
IANA comment.

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:06:24 +0100

Hi,

7.  IANA Considerations

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473