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
Mailing list archives
RADEXT Mailing List
Archives for 2009
RADEXT Mailing List
Archives for 2008
RADEXT Mailing List
Archives for 2007
RADEXT Mailing List
Archives for 2006
RADEXT Mailing List
Archives for 2005
RADEXT Mailing List
Archives for 2004
Past Meetings
Agenda and Presentations from October 2009 Virtual InterimDocument Status
RFCs Published
The Network Access Identifier
(RFC 4282) obsoletes RFC 2486
Chargeable User Identity (RFC
4372)
RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for
IPV6 (RFC 4668) obsoletes RFC 2618
RADIUS Authentication Server MIB
for IPv6 (RFC 4669) obsoletes RFC 2619
RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6
(RFC 4670) obsoletes RFC 2620
RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for
IPv6 (RFC 4671) obsoletes RFC 2621
RADIUS
Dynamic Authorization Client MIB (RFC 4672)
RADIUS Dynamic Authorization Server
MIB (RFC 4673)
RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN and
Priority Support (RFC 4675)
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
RADIUS
Location Attributes (RFC 5580)
NAS Management Authorization (RFC
5607)
Completed IETF Last Call
Design GuidelinesCompleted RADEXT WG Last Call
Extended RADIUS Attributes
RADIUS Crypto-agility Requirements
New Tunnel Type Values
RADSEC
Status-Server
RADIUS over TCP
RADEXT WG Work Items
Under Review as a RADEXT WG Work Item
RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks
RADIUS over DTLS
IPv6
RADIUS attributes
Completed Pre-Work Item Review
Abandoned
RADIUS ConfidentialityFailed 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 |
| Issue 280 | RFC 4282 Errata | Technical | i18n issues | Alan DeKok |
Completed IETF Last Call
| Design Guidelines
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 313 | DESIGN-10 | Technical | Security Exemption | Alan DeKok |
| Issue 314 | REJECT | Technical | My Problem | Hannes Tschofenig |
| Issue 318 | REJECT | Technical | Inappropriate Use of RFC 2119 Keywords | Glen Zorn |
| Issue 319 | DESIGN-10 | Technical | Misleading References | Glen Zorn |
| Issue 320 | REJECT | Technical | Definition of RADIUS IPv6 "data types" arbitrary and unjustified | Glen Zorn |
Completed RADEXT WG Last Call
| Tunnel Type Values
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Extended
Attributes
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 251 | Pending | Technical | Review | Bernard Aboba |
| Issue 290 | No Discussion | Technical | RFC 4005bis Dependency | Bernard Aboba |
| Issue 298 | No Discussion | Technical | Extended Attributes Restriction | Bernard Aboba |
| RADSEC
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 306 | No Discussion | Technical | NAS Identity | Joe Salowey |
| Issue 307 | No Discussion | Technical | RADSEC & DTLS Docs | Joe Salowey |
| Issue 308 | No Discussion | Technical | RADSEC Certificate Handling | Joe Salowey |
| Issue 323 | No Discussion | Editorial | Use of a Product Name | Bernard Aboba |
| Status Server
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 309 | STATUS-05 | Technical | Review | Bernard Aboba |
| RADIUS over TCP Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 315 | RADTCP-04 | Technical | Review | Stig Venaas |
| Issue 316 | RADTCP-04 | Technical | Comments | Bernard Aboba |
WG Work Items
| NAI-Based Peer Discovery Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 310 | No Discussion | Technical | Review | Bernard Aboba |
In Pre-WG Work Item Review
| IEEE 802 Attributes
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| RADIUS Attributes for IPv6
Networks Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 317 | Pending | Technical | Review | Alan DeKok |
| Issue 321 | Pending | Technical | Relationship to IPv6 Address Allocation Models | Joe Salowey |
| Issue 322 | No Discussion | Technical | Unclear Service Definition | David Nelson |
| RADIUS over DTLS 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 |
| RADIUS Location
Attributes
Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
Abandoned Documents
|
RADIUS Crypto-Agility Requirements Issue Number |
Status | Type | Description | Owner |
| Issue 274 | Pending | Technical | Review | Joe Salowey |
| Issue 275 | Pending | Technical | Comments | Glen Zorn |
| Issue 303 | Pending | Technical | Review | Pasi Eronen |
|
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 |
| Issue 305 | Pending | Technical | Review | Dan Harkins |
|
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 |
| 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.