Document:  draft-zorn-radius-port-type-03.txt 
Reviewer: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:ZZ00:EXCH]
Review Date:  Tuesday 3/28/2006 2:22 PM CST
IESG Telechat Date:  Thursday, 30 March 2006

Summary:  This draft has serious issues,  described in the review, and needs to be rethought.

Comments:

1. Where can the complete and most up to date list of NAS-Port-Type
Attribute values be found? At www.iana.org or in an update to this
proposed-RFC? The document does not say. If it is the latter, do we
actually need to publish this as an RFC? If it is the former, this
should be clearly stated in the document.

2. I am assuming that the appropriate 'designated experts' have approved
the content in section 2.

3. Now that this is ready for publication, is the third paragraph in
section 1 which says 'Discussion of this draft may be directed to the
authors' still appropriate? 

4. Section 3 is problematic and requires removal or rewriting. I
recommend deleting it and replacing it will appropriate call outs to RFC
2434 and 3575.

4.1 This document was requesting new values from IANA, but section 3.0
says 'This section explains the criteria to be used by the IANA for
assignment of numbers within namespaces defined within this document.'
My understanding is that this namespace was not defined within this
document, but within RFC 2434. Discussion of how to manage this
namespace is given in RFC 3575.

4.2 Section 3.1 repeats text from RFC 3575 on how this namespace is to
be managed. What happens if RFC 3575 gets updated? I would suggest just
removing this text from the document and pointing people to RFC 3575 for
rules on how this namespace is to be managed.

4.3 Delete the sentence that says 'The values given have already been
implemented by Cisco Systems.' as it isn't relevant and will quickly
become an obsolete list of implementations.

5. In section 1, second paragraph and again in section 3.1 second
paragraph, there is an extra space between 'to act as' and 'a request
for allocation'.