[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Geopriv] Re: Radius-Geopriv: CDMA operator-name prefix / registry

The IANA considerations created two things.
It created the type registry. That is quite understandable. (And given the stated goal of allowing folks to keep doing what they are already doing, probably necessary.)

It also states that the REALM operator identification type contains values registered within IANA. And it says nothing more about it other than that IANA shall maintain the registry.
Realm (DNS domain) is entirely reasonable to use as an operator identification.
However, what I was objecting to is creating another registry for it.

Yours,
Joel

At 08:38 AM 3/3/2005, jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com wrote: 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: 2. maaliskuuta 2005 15:46
> To: Tschofenig Hannes; radiusext@ops.ietf.org; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: [Geopriv] Re: Radius-Geopriv: CDMA operator-name
> prefix / registry
>
> This creates the requirement that IANA maintain a registry of
> operators.

Isn't that just a list of "operator types", which is relatively
small amount of information? Actual management of operators is
delegated to appropriate organizations identified by the operator
type.

> Why not declare that any entity that owns a domain name by proper
> delegation (reference DNS documents) may use that string as a realm?
> That avoids creating yet another registry.
>
> It would also seem sensible, given such a strategy, to at
> least comment on
> why the other two values are necessary.



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>