Re: AAAEXT charter, Take 1

[David Mitton <david@mitton.com>]

On 3/31/2004 07:58 AM -0800, Richard Perlman wrote:
> 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?
> >
> 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

The consistent IETF/IESG direction has been to prevent any further RADIUS 
development. That is why the RADIUS WG closed.  That is why we created the 
NASREQ WG and later the AAA WG.

I think the idea of a group that attacks the AAA problems and comes up with 
solutions for both Diameter and RADIUS is the most politically, and 
functionally desireable.

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/>