Additional Values for the NAS-Port-Type Attribute
RFC 4603

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) Yes

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

(Bert Wijnen) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-03-30)
No email
send info
Since I'm told this is not proprietary, the sentence
  The values given have already been implemented by Cisco Systems.
(end of section 3.1) is inappropriate and amounts to condoning the use
of unassigned values. I would suggest
  The values given have already been implemented by at least one vendor
  without assignment by IANA.

Also, the first two sentences in section 3 have no logical place
in this document.
  This section explains the criteria to be used by the IANA for
  assignment of numbers within namespaces defined within this document.
  The "Expert Review" policy is used here with the meaning defined in
  BCP 26 [RFC2434].
The document doesn't define a namespace and doesn't define a policy.
I would simply delete those sentences.

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-03-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Section 1 and 3.1 contain largely the same text. Are both copies really necessary? Consider removing 3.1 when addressing Brain's comment WRT vendor naming (including his suggested text change in section 1).

Magnus Westerlund No Objection