RE: Discussion of the RADIUS data model (was RE: New Technical Issues RE: WG last call in progress on VLAN/Priority Draft)

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Nelson, David <> supposedly scribbled:

...

> 
> I agree that the right balance is important.  My feeling is that we
> need more formality in the RADIUS data model that we have now (which
> is pretty minimal) to enhance interoperability going forwards, and
> allow server vendors who wish to design data dictionary driven
> implementations to do so.  Exactly how much more is the topic we
> should be debating.     
> 
> I've noticed, BTW, that no one on the list has taken up Greg Weber's
> invitation to directly comment upon his latest RADIUS Design
> Guidelines draft.  We seem to be having some of that discussion, in a
> meta-discussion sense, in this thread though.  I suppose that simply
> validates the observation that WG's don't really engage in discussing
> any document until WGLC.  :-)  

I suggest that WGs do their best work in a non-linear fashion and further, that documents are in fact the tangible expression of that work, rather than ends in and of themselves.   

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>