[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Consideration of draft-lior-radius-attribute-type-extension-02.txt
FWIW I also think that RADSEC should be a WG item also but I am aware that
some people are vehemently against that for reasons that are less
[gwz] Since I am one of those people, let me try to further clarify my
reasons for opposition. Very simply, RADSEC is not RADIUS & this is the
RADIUS Extensions WG. RADSEC changes virtually everything in RADIUS except
the format of the packets & attributes. This must be considered a new
protocol, IMHO. If the RADSEC folks want to have a BOF & try to convince
the IETF that we should work on standardizing this arguably good idea (at
least in the context of server<->server communication, I'm not convinced
about client<->server) I wouldn't oppose that at all, since that's the way
we deal with new protocols around here, AFAIK.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.