eap Mailing List: Another two minor and finicky IANA considerations questions for RFC3748

[Florent Bersani (florent.bersani]

Hi all,

While reviewing again RFC 3748b, I just came across two little (and 
fairly uninteresting I admit) questions/remarks (that may however help 
RFC 3748 understanding in the future:

1) It is apparently not specified how expanded (method) types for 
vendor-ID 0 (IETF) can be allocated (e.g. Designated Expert, with 
Specification Required or standards action, FCFS, ...).
In section 6.2 we indeed only read:
"Method Type values 256-4294967295 may be allocated after Type values 
1-191 have been allocated."
I know we've probably got time before this happens but I just feel 
reluctant to leave an incomplete spec behind us ;-)

2) The (non)-use of 0 as packet code or method type

The newbie I am is pretty sure that there are good reasons why EAP did 
not start its code and type space at 0 (and I'd be more than thankful to 
anybody who could tell me why) but I find the current wording about not 
using this value a (very little) bit confusing.

In section 6.1 of RFC 3748b we read:
"Packet Codes have a range from 1 to 255" and on the IANA website 
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers) we find:

"(last updated 12 April 2004)
Packet Codes:
Value Description Reference
1 Request [RFC-ietf-eap-rfc2284bis-09.txt]
2 Response [RFC-ietf-eap-rfc2284bis-09.txt]
3 Success [RFC-ietf-eap-rfc2284bis-09.txt]
4 Failure [RFC-ietf-eap-rfc2284bis-09.txt]
5-255 Unallocated"

In section 6.2 of RFC 3748b we read:
"The original EAP method Type space has a range from 1 to 255" and on 
the IANA website (http://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers) we find:

"(last updated 12 April 2004)
...
Value Description Reference
0 RESERVED
1 Identity [RFC-ietf-eap-rfc2284bis-09.txt]
..."

Indeed, the value 0 is used in the NAK response.

My suggestion would be to find a way to simply reflect this usage in RFC 
3748 and for IANA.
My preference would be adding a small reminder on the value 0 usage in 
RFC 3748 section 6.2 and updating the IANA website to also refer to RFC 
3748 for this value. I am ready to propose some text if people feel like 
making this minor and unimportant change.

BR,
Florent

P.S: BTW, it seems like we (EAP and/or IANA) have not captured the point 
I raised earlier on Method Type 7&8 
(http://mail.frascone.com/pipermail/public/eap/2004-May/002486.html).
Again, I am ready to propose some text if people feel like making this 
minor and unimportant change (and I concurred to Jari's proposal 
"allocated but unused").