Re: Proposed Resolution of Issue #320: REJECT

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Glen Zorn wrote:
> Hmm.  The practice of making bald assertions of opinion without basis in
> fact seems to be contagious ;-).  As many people have noted over the years,
> although RFC2865 defines the "address" data type, no attributes are defined
> to be of type "address" in that document.

  This statement is a bald-faced lie.

  From RFC 2865:

...
      address   32 bit value, most significant octet first.
...

5.4.  NAS-IP-Address
...
   Address

      The Address field is four octets.

  Other attributes use the "Address" type, too.

  The only way to make your statement true is to claim that the
"address" data type define on page 25 is not, in fact, the "Address"
data type used in Section 5.4.

  When you make statements that can be refuted by reading the RFCs, it's
as much as admitting that your opinions have no basis in reality.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>