Re: Bof at next IETF?

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

"Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com> wrote:
> Those drafts that call for extensions to RADIUS that are outside the
> RADEXT proposed charter, and would break backwards compatibility with
> the existing RADIUS RFCs and RADIUS implementations, should never, IMHO,
> be published as Standards Track RFCs, and I have some serious doubts as
> to whether they should be published as Informational RFCs.

  The client kickstart at least has zero impact on existing
implementations.  If your server doesn't support dynamic registration
of clients, then the current methods (or lack thereof) are OK.  If
your server does support it, then if the clients support it, you get
an incremental piece of security in your network.

  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/>