[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RADEXT WG Last Call on "RADIUS Delegated IPv6 Prefix Attribute"
On Mar 9, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Nelson, David wrote:
Emile van Bergen writes...
Before disregarding C structures as proper solutions, I think that
alternative solution should be carefully applied to the problem to see
how it plays out. This process is only just beginning in the WG, and
deprecating all existing practice *now* seems rather premature.
Are you suggesting that the RADEXT WG work items of RADIUS Attribute
Design Guidelines and RADIUS Extended Attributes should be applied
*only* to RADIUS related I-Ds that are submitted *after* RADEXT
completes its work on all the other extensions on its charter? IMHO,
would be cynical, to say the least, that we establish design guidelines
and new attribute formats for others but exempt ourselves from paying
heed to them. Do as I say, not as I do. :-(
That does not seem to me to be the (cynical) suggestion. Rather the
suggestion is that it is premature to hold up a last-call WG draft
because it does not comply with an individual draft, not ready for last
February 25, 2006 draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-00.txt - now
in last call
March 5, 2006 draft-weber-radius-attr-guidelines-02.txt - on
the IETF 65 agenda for discussion
It has already been noted that the format proposed is consistant with
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.