RE: Rationalizing the RADIUS data model

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

Avi,

> > Knowing the enforcemant part of the IETF is rather weak, I 
> > don't think you need to worry about this.  If the IETF 
> > defines a standard content, and insists upon its use for 
> > standard / interoperable usage, would this be a problem?  
> >
> The answer is yes!!!!!

OK, what problem does this cause?
 
> Then what is the point of doing this?  This is going to generate more heat
> then light.  It will be a pointless exercise. 

Jari said this already:

	.. obviously, the
	primary driver for something like this would come from
	a longer-term desire to improve and unify the data
	models in VSA, SDO, and IETF space. Current drafts on
	the IETF stds table do not cause us to run out of attribute
	or type space. So the first thing to decide is whether we
	want to do something about the "VSA problem", and if
	yes, then something like what I proposed would seem
	reasonable.

John

--
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/>