RE: Strawman RADIUSEXT WG charter - Take Two

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Glen Zorn writes...
 
> Isn't it just a bit of a contradiction (not to mention a conflict of
> interest) for the same person to chair 2 WGs whose purposes are so
> diametrically opposed?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that
> Diameter was to replace RADIUS as the IETF standard AAA protocol,
while
> the apparent purpose of this proposed WG is to delay that replacement
as
> long as possible, if not to kill Diameter altogether.  Therefore, I
> would suggest that you abandon the dead-end work of the AAA WG
> altogether in favor of more fruitful area of RADIUS extensions.

I don't know how to judge whether it's a contradiction, but (IMHO) it
certainly isn't a conflict of interest.  The latter would imply that
actions and decisions in one WG would be adversely influenced by the
best interests of another.  That's not the way in which I view the
proposed RADIUSEXT WG.

Yes, Diameter is intended to replace RADIUS, much in the same way that
same way that IPv6 is intended to replace IPv4.  Recently, however, the
Internet community has been speaking about IPv4 / IPv6 co-existence more
than it is speaking about transition or replacement.  I think we can
take this approach with RADIUS.  RADIUS will likely continue to be used
in problem spaces where it is sufficiently useful.  When the problem
space requires the additional flexibility and features of Diameter,
that's what will likely be deployed.

The only question that I think needs to be answered here is whether
there is a valid need for a limited set of extensions to RADIUS, in the
existing protocol framework, that will not substantially duplicate the
features of Diameter.

-- Dave



--
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/>