[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New Technical Issues RE: WG last call in progress on VLAN/Priority Draft
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 06:06:33PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote:
> Emile van Bergen <openradius-radextwg@e-advies.nl> wrote:
> > I find it incomprehensible that the DIAMETER format would not need any
> > evaluation against the alternatives on the merits, but that people can
> > just wave their hands and say, there's already some diameter parsing
> > code in many RADIUS server's that support TTLS in some form or other, so
> > hey, 'tis the only sensible road ahead.
>
> s/only/proven working, implemented, deployed, and functional/
>
> If there are other alternatives, they should be explored, of course.
> But the diameter format, while wasteful of space in the RADIUS packet,
> *is* a proven one.
It's proven as a working AAA protocol. It's not yet proven as the
successor to RADIUS. It's not proven as the best way to fix urgent
RADIUS issues ad interim, as our charter sets out to do, before people
move to DIAMETER.
Cheers,
Emile.
--
E-Advies - Emile van Bergen emile@e-advies.nl
tel. +31 (0)78 6136282 http://www.e-advies.nl
--
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/>