[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Data Types defined in RFC 2865



Glen said:

"Aside from that, even as a description of RADIUS “as it is” the document fails, since it denigrates without justification (aside from the spurious “code change” argument) the so-called “complex” attributes that have been part of RADIUS for almost a decade."

The original goal was just to describe the complex attributes, not to denigrate them.  What specific text is problematic?