Re: AAAEXT charter, Take 1

[Richard Perlman <perl@lucent.com>]

Bernard:

Personally, I'd like to keep the work separate.  There is certainly good
reason for the work on DIAMETER and RADIUS futures to coordinate with each
other, but I think the actual WGs should be separate.

One good reason is to avoid endless battles over whether a certain extension
should be in D, R or both.  Let each group work out the best path, that is
consistent with overall IETF/IESG direction.

Richard

On 3/31/04 07:51, "Bernard Aboba" <aboba@internaut.com> wrote:

>> For what its worth, I agree with Jari's suggested modified charter.
>> I have more interest in the converged view of supporting both RADIUS
>> & Diameter, so I'm motivated by Jari's charter to be involved.
> 
> How do other participants feel about a "AAAEXT" charter?
> Should we rename the potential WG and re-orient towards handling both
> RADIUS and Diameter in a single WG?
> 
> --
> 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/>
> 


--
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/>