Hi, > 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? Well, in case you are referring to me in IETF-71, I admitted that there are non-trivial operational differences between the two transports, and that the characteristics of a stateful transport need to taken into account properly. That makes it *different from RADIUS over UDP*, but not substantially different from RADIUS *at all*. Even you conceded to saying that the innermost PDU still remains as it is, so if nothing else, there is a core of RADIUS embedded. And I would be surprised if you don't see yourself that backwards compatibility is considerably easier if this PDU can be repackaged into a new transport without changing it (except the changes that any RADIUS apcket undergoes anyway on a RADIUS proxy, re-signing with its own shared secret). In general, I see this discussion "is it different or not?" as rather pointless in the real world. Whatever one's perceived opinion or perceived outcome is, it doesn't change anything in the protocol itself. Greetings, Stefan Winter -- Stefan WINTER Stiftung RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche Ingenieur Forschung & Entwicklung 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tel.: +352 424409-1 http://www.restena.lu Fax: +352 422473
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.