Bernard Aboba writes...
It *might* even obsolete the need for new RADIUS work in some areas -- some existing Diameter applications might be reusable. That is a huge win if it is possible.
This *is* an attractive concept. I'm vaguely concerned, however, that we not take this to the next step and attempt to retrofit RADIUS with some|many|all of the features of Diameter. That used to be an explicit prohibition in an earlier charter draft. I think that we need to focus on the unified data model issue and the Diameter compatibility issue, without falling into the trap of creating a RADIUS-Plus protocol.
Agreed. Yes, that danger has occurred to me as well. One way to proceed is to think very hard about the _scope_ of any extension we make but still ensure that whatever we do tries to unify rather than fragment the current data models. For instance, in a fear of retrofit and complexity, we might adopt the same identifier space and some new data types, but not take on all data types from Diameter and not extend the attribute length. We just need to be careful that while doing so, we don't turn "scoping" into "do things differently".
-- 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/>