[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AAAEXT charter, Take 1
On 3/31/2004 07:58 AM -0800, Richard Perlman wrote:
On 3/31/04 07:51, "Bernard Aboba" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> For what its worth, I agree with Jari's suggested modified charter.
>> I have more interest in the converged view of supporting both RADIUS
>> & Diameter, so I'm motivated by Jari's charter to be involved.
> How do other participants feel about a "AAAEXT" charter?
> Should we rename the potential WG and re-orient towards handling both
> RADIUS and Diameter in a single WG?
Personally, I'd like to keep the work separate. There is certainly good
reason for the work on DIAMETER and RADIUS futures to coordinate with each
other, but I think the actual WGs should be separate.
One good reason is to avoid endless battles over whether a certain extension
should be in D, R or both. Let each group work out the best path, that is
consistent with overall IETF/IESG direction.
The consistent IETF/IESG direction has been to prevent any further RADIUS
development. That is why the RADIUS WG closed. That is why we created the
NASREQ WG and later the AAA WG.
I think the idea of a group that attacks the AAA problems and comes up with
solutions for both Diameter and RADIUS is the most politically, and
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.