RE: Consensus Call on RADEXT WG re-charter

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org <> scribbled on Monday, April 14, 2008
12:17 PM:

...

> 
> However, if the WG decides that RADIUS (the application
> protocol) can be transport-agnostic, I see no reason to get hung up
> on "naming rights". 

First, the WG would have to _define_ RADIUS "the application protocol",
since it doesn't exist w/o reference to the underlying transport.  Maybe
you have your own reasons for not wanting to change the name, but I do
wish that this charade of claiming "backward compatibility" would come
to an end.  Even the creators of RADSEC have conceded that it's not
RADIUS, why can't you?

> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>



--
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/>