This page contains information on the IETF RADEXT WG, including current status of RADEXT WG drafts and the list of open and resolved issues.
About the IETF RADEXT WG
RADEXT WG
charter
RADEXT Mailing
List Archives for 2008
RADEXT Mailing
List Archives for 2007
RADEXT Mailing
List Archives for 2006
Past Meetings
Agenda and Presentations from IETF 71
Document Status
RFC Published
The Network Access Identifier
(RFC 4282) obsoletes RFC 2486
Chargeable User Identity (RFC
4372)
RADIUS Extension for Digest
Authentication (RFC 4590)
RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for
IPv6 (RFC 4670) obsoletes RFC 2620
RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for
IPv6 (RFC 4671) obsoletes RFC 2621
RADIUS Authentication Server MIB
for IPv6 (RFC 4669) obsoletes RFC 2619
RADIUS Authentication Client MIB
for IPV6 (RFC 4668) obsoletes RFC 2618
RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN
and Priority Support (RFC 4675)
RADIUS Dynamic Authorization
Server MIB (RFC 4673)
RADIUS Dynamic Authorization
Client MIB (RFC 4672)
RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-Prefix
Attribute (RFC 4818)
NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute
(RFC 4849)
Issues and Fixes (RFC 5080)
Digest Authentication (RFC 5090) obsoletes RFC
4590
Dynamic Authorization (RFC 5176)
obsoletes RFC 3576
In IESG Review
RADIUS Location Attributes Status Summary
Completed RADEXT WG Last Call
Design GuidelinesIn RADEXT WG Last Call
Management Attributes Last Call Announcement (Ends March 28, 2008)WG Work Item
Pre-Work Item Review
RADIUS
Extensions for WLAN
RADIUS Crypto-agility
RADIUS Confidentiality
RADIUS over DTLS
RADIUS ERP Attributes
Failed Pre-work Item Review
Bandwidth
Attributes Deployment
Review WG Consensus
Summary
Capabilities
negotiation WG Consensus
Summary
Previous Attribute Space Extension Proposals
Extended RADIUS Attributes
Diameter/RADIUS VSAs
RADIUSv2 Extensions
RADIUS Attribute
Extension Proposals
Liaison Status
IETF/IEEE 802 Liaison web page
Issues Process
Issue submission
Any Working Group (WG) participant can at any time submit an Issue relating to any draft that is a WG work item, or in pre-work item review. All Issues should be posted to the WG mailing list (radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format given below, with Issue: in the subject line. The chairs then enter the issue on the RADEXT Issues list. In addition to pointing out potential problems, Issue submitters are requested to supply the changes to the document that would resolve the issue to their satisfaction. Issues submitted without proposed resolutions, or without specific guidance as to the proposed resolution may be rejected.
Issue resolution
Other WG participants, including the document
editor, can reply to an Issue posting, commenting on the proposed resolution,
proposing an alternative, or arguing that the Issue should be rejected. Once
discussion on the Issue discussion has concluded, the WG chairs will make a
judgment on the consensus of the WG, or will request that the editor make a
proposal for the resolution of the Issue.
Issues cannot be closed
without a specific proposal for their resolution being sent to the RADEXT WG
mailing list. In particular, Editors may
not make technical changes to
documents without submitting or resolving an issue, since the Issues process is
used to judge whether WG consensus exists for the change. Inclusion of
substantive (e.g. technical) changes without authorization by a document editor
is grounds for dismissal.
Pre-work item review
Prior to becoming a WG work item, the WG is
requested to review the document. The pre-work item review serves to determine
whether the draft has major technical issues, as well as to demonstrate if there
is sufficient interest in the draft among WG participants.
Assuming that
review comments are received, and the editor subsequently resolves the comments
to the satisfaction of the submitters, the WG is
asked whether there is
interest in taking on the draft as a WG work item. If there is WG
consensus for taking on the work, then the editor may submit a draft with the
title "draft-ietf-radext-<SUBJECT>-00.txt".
Open Issues List
A description in red implies that no issuehas been submitted (if you are the owner of such a message, please send RADEXT WG an issue). An asterix following an Issue number (e.g. Issue#666*) means that the issue entry is not up to date, and the author isexpect to send additional text to RADEXT WG .
To submit a new issue, send an e-mail to the RADEXT WG Mailing List, using the following template:
Description of issue
Submitter name: Your_Name_Here
Submitter email address: Your_Email_Address_Here
Date first submitted: Insert_Date_Here
Reference: URL to e-mail describing problem, if available
Document: Document Requiring change [RFC2284bis, RFC 2869bis, Keying Framework, EAP Binding, State Machine]
Comment type: ['T'echnical | 'E'ditorial]
Priority: ['S' Must fix | '1' Should fix | '2' May fix ]
Section: Insert_Section_Number_Here
Rationale/Explanation of issue:
Length description of problem
Requested change:
Proposed changes to the document. Please be specific about what text you want to change, add or delete. Issues cannot be considered until specific text is provided.
For open issues, the following values are used in the Status Field:
Text Proposed - Text has been proposed on the list, and noconsensus has been reached
Accepted - Text has been proposed, consensus has been reached, butthe fix hasn't been included in a specification yet.
Pending - Discussion is on-going, no proposed text has been proposed
No Discussion - No discussion has been initiated on this issue.
Clarifying Text Required - The issue can be closed if additional clarifying text is added to the draft
Possible Reject - Issue will be rejected unless objections occur.
Errata
| RFC 4282
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 155 | RFC4282 Errata | Editorial | Review | Alfred HAnes |
In AUTH 48
Completed RADEXT WG Last Call
|
Filtering and Redirection Attributes Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 172 | No Discussion | Technical | Authorize-Only Usage in HTTP Redirect | Greg Weber |
| Issue 242 | No Discussion | Technical | Extensibility Question | Hannes Tschofenig |
| Issue 247 | No Discussion | Technical | Review | Alan DeKok |
| Extended Attributes
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 225 | Pending | Technical | Review | Alan DeKok |
| Issue 250 | Pending | Technical | Comments | Greg Weber |
| Issue 251 | Pending | Technical | Review | Bernard Aboba |
| Design Guidelines
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 106 | No Discussion | Technical | Vendor Specific Values | David Nelson |
| Issue 249 | No Discussion | Editorial | Review | Greg Weber |
| Issue 252 | Pending | Technical | Review | Bernard Aboba |
In RADEXT WG Last Call
| NAS Management Authorization
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
WG Work Items
Pre-WG Work Item Review
|
RADIUS Crypto-Agility Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 220 | Pending | Technical | Comments | Dan Harkins |
| Issue 221 | Pending | Technical | Review | Bernard Aboba |
| Issue 244 | Pending | Technical | Crypto-Agility Requirements | Dan Harkins |
| RADIUS
over DTLS Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| WLAN extensions
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
Review Requests from other WGs
| AAA Framework for Multicast Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 248 | No Discussion | Technical | Review | Alan DeKok |
| RADIUS ERP Attributes
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 246 | No Discussion | Technical | Review | Alan DeKok |
| RADIUS MIPv6 Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 203 | No Discussion | Technical | Review of draft-chowdhury-mipv6-radius | Pasi Eronen |
Abandoned Documents
| BW Document
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 84 | Pending | Technical | Review of the Bandwidth Document | Bernard Aboba |
| Issue 99 | No Discussion | Technical | ICAR Review | Allison Mankin |
Resolved Issues List
The following table contains the issues that have already been resolved,and the fix included in a revision of the specifications.