Nelson, David wrote:
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".