charter vs drafts, sub-types

["Beck01, Wolfgang" <BeckW@t-systems.com>]

Dave Nelson wrote:

> I think that the "charter issue", as you call it, is that some of the
> proposed drafts fall outside the scope of the proposed charter, for
> which there is fairly broad support.
We had some discussion on the list about the sub-type issue.
I did not get the impression that we have rough consensus over
this part of the charter.

> The operative question is whether the charter should be revised or
> those particular drafts revised.  I am suggesting that the charter
> is fine and that the drafts that fall out of scope should be revised.
I chose to retain sub-attributes in my draft (which is still in
the queue of internet-drafts@ietf.org), as I felt the topic was still
undecided. And there are existing implementations that I did not want
to break without reason.

If the list decides, that 'thou shalt not use sub-attributes' I will
submit an updated version in a couple of days.


Wolfgang Beck



--
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/>