Mohit Sethi wrote:
> As far as I can tell, we will not be the first ones using such a
> scheme. ".home.arpa." defined in RFC 8375
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8375.html) allows sub domains. It says:
> "For an administrative domain that uses subdomains of 'home.arpa.',
As far as I can tell, we will not be the first ones using such a scheme.
".home.arpa." defined in RFC 8375
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8375.html) allows sub domains. It
says: "For an administrative domain that uses subdomains of
'home.arpa.', such as a homenet, the recursive resolvers
On Mar 22, 2024, at 1:58 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I think its an IAB question. IANA with implement whatever we ask for.
> It would be EMU's Expert Reviewers that would decide, I guess.
> It's late in the week to pigeon hole someone, but ... maybe we can find
> someone.
OK.
> Is a
Alan DeKok wrote:
> 1. Instead of servers deciding the EAP method based on the username
>part of the NAI, the EAP method could be decided based on the sub domain
>under eap.arpa in the realm portion of the NAI. Thus a peer wanting to
>be provisioned would use
On Mar 21, 2024, at 11:30 PM, Mohit Sethi wrote:
>
> I would like to support the adoption of the document with two caveats based
> on my deployment experience thus far. Obviously, Alan and Heikki have much
> more expertise and experience than me but just providing a data point:
>
> 1. Instead
Hi,
My apologies for the delays, but I have now read this document in full and it
is well written. I’ve reviewed the
Proposed registries and values and they reflect similar if not same values and
allocations to what was in RFC7170
And both document and allocations are properly reflected.
I
I would like to support the adoption of the document with two caveats
based on my deployment experience thus far. Obviously, Alan and Heikki
have much more expertise and experience than me but just providing a
data point:
1. Instead of servers deciding the EAP method based on the username
