Dan Harkins said: > draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-provisioning claims a reference to RFC 5226 > but nowhere in that RFC can I find description of the following label > for an initial assignment of repository values: > > "allocated for management by Cisco" > > yet the draft instructs IANA to set aside values 11-63 for just that > purpose. I think that's very inappropriate. Not only is it telling IANA > to cede some of its authority to a large multinational corporation but > it is decidedly *NOT* documenting existing use! If this whole exercise > is to document existing use then where are the specifications for these > PAC attribute types?
It would appear that the registry of "EAP-FAST PAC Attribute Types" relates to a Standard Track document, RFC 4507, although the document itself doesn't indicate that it updates RFC 4507. RFC 5226 does permit vendor-specific registries, although it is somewhat odd to enable vendor extensions for only one vendor, particularly if this does relate to an IETF standards track document (which would imply IETF change control, no?)
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
