[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document
On Jan 12, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Avi Lior wrote:
I am sorry but i dont understand the concept of a non-IETF SDO vs (I
assume) an IETF SDO.
The is no significant concept there other than the fact that I
consider the IETF to be an SDO.
I think that that is a personal attack David...
It was not intended as an attack, but simply as an observation.
You have no idea what I have been doing in other SDOs.
With all due respect, you personally told me as much during one of the
IETF social events. Do you recall? While I do see an element of
irony here, let's not get diverted down that "rathole".
I think the main issue of contention is how to reasonably extend the
RADIUS protocol to me the need to advanced applications. I think that
it's reasonable to *extended* RADIUS in a forward / backward
compatible way. What I think is unreasonable is to *re-define* RADIUS
in a fashion that "breaks" a large number of fielded deployments. We
can argue all day about whether the "traditional" RADIUS Attributes
and data model as defined in RFC encompasses the notion of complex
attributes. What I think is compelling is the fact that a large
number of existing implementations took the interpretation that it
Why is it so onerous to utilize the RADIUS Extended Attribute as the
vehicle to address the needs fro complex types and other advanced
features? I simply don't understand.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.