Re: i18n and RADIUS

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> That is an important point to make, because RFC 4282 proponents often
> point to the encoding of an email address in say, EAI, as somehow
> implyiing that the same encoding needs to be enforced in EAP and
> RADIUS.  That argument is fundamentally unsound, and needs to be laid
> out clearly.  The IDNA documents make much the same point, by stating
> that the encoding of a domain name in DNS has no bearing on how it is to
> be encoded in other protocols.  But somehow this message has not been
> clearly stated to apply to network access protocols which are 8-bit clean. 

  That's why I wrote 4282bis...

> [BA] I believe that this argument is already laid out clearly in RFC
> 2865, 3748 and other related RFCs, and has been implemented very
> widely.  So this is not just an "opinion", it is a reality which aligns
> with the RFCs.  This unique convergence of reality and standards should
> be celebrated, not punished :(

  The document says that explicitly: No one has implemented the
recommendations of 4282.

> [BA] Rather than doing an RFC 4282bis, I am wondering whether it might
> make sense to recast this as "Internationalization in RADIUS". 

  Having a 4282bis would mean that 4282 would no longer be relevant.
The current document is simple, and has a simple focus.  i18n in RADIUS
might be a longer document.

> Since RFC 4282 is fundamentally wrong in its approach to
> internationalization, it may be better to focus on explaining why it
> does not apply in a document that focuses on RADIUS. 

  The 4282bis document does that extensively.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>