[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document
I absolutely agree.
Historically, specifically around this document -- consensus has not been a working group priority.
On 12-01-2010, at 07:41 , Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of David B. Nelson
>> Sent: 11 January 2010 21:21
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Subject: Re: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document
>> On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Avi Lior wrote:
>> I understand, but at some point you may want to consider
>> simply accepting the WG consensus on this and to find another
>> way to address your issues. Attempting to re-open closed
>> discussions isn't productive
> Woj> Sorry to hark on, but in terms of "consensus" and not re-opening
> closed discussions, judging by the number of folks who have raised the
> issue, it would be better to say that there no longer is consensus, with
> even a rough consensus being questionable. Sometimes one needs to be
> able take a step back inorder to move forward.
>>> I can just ignore this document at the IETF but the
>> problem is that it will > haunt me at the SDO level.
>> I'm certainly not suggesting that you (or anyone) ignore the document.
>>> Several people told me that no one will take this document
>> seriously > and that I should let it go.
>> Well, those who give you that advice would appear to me to
>> not take the standard process seriously.
>>> What is the purpose of this document?
>> The purpose is to document the Internet community's
>> assessment of the Best Current Practice for designing RADIUS
>> Attributes for the "traditional" RADIUS protocol, as defined
>> in RFC 2865.
>> The purpose of the RADIUS Extended Attributes document is to
>> address the shortcomings of the "traditional" RADIUS data
>> model that we are all very familiar with. Or at least to
>> partially address those shortcomings. The WG consensus on
>> that does stop short of creating full feature-parity with Diameter.
>> to unsubscribe send a message to
>> email@example.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.