RE: RADIUS V2

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Hi Johan,

I would have thought that we didn't want to go to RADIUSv2.  But reading the
list you would get the impression that RADIUS has a long bright future.  If
that was true then we should be addressing other issues and these issues are
way more important then what was originally proposed by some.

I do like Jari attribute but is it too little too late? 

Is someone really asking for it?  Are things really busted?

What happened between Charter 3,4 etc. (no new attribute types) and now? We
should be asking these questions as well no?

What do you make of position that espouses the death of RADIUS then all of a
sudden start tauting  RADIUS Guidelines and Rationalization?  I for one
would like to understand the reason for that shift.

If this shift is justified then lets look at what we really have to do?

NASREQ btw is the forward compatibility for RADIUS and Diameter.  Do we
really need another one?

Avi.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: johan.rh.hermans@alcatel.be 
> [mailto:johan.rh.hermans@alcatel.be] 
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 5:03 AM
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: Avi Lior
> Subject: Re: RADIUS V2
> 
> 
> Avi Lior wrote:
> 
> >  
> > Since it seems by the traffic on the list -- if we need a "fresh
> > start"  the lets do it right folks.
> >  
> > I propose that we create RADIUS V2 and that we include the new
> > attribute proposed by Jari and do some other good things as well.  
> > After all, reading the list one would get the impression 
> that RADIUS 
> > will live a long time. 
> >
> This sounds like a flashback to the year 1999. RADIUSv2, 
> Radius++, etc 
> ... were proposed a long time ago, but in the end Diameter 
> has won. Do 
> we need all that debate all over again ?
> 
> I know that Diameter has gotten a slow start, but it's 
> currently being 
> implemented (though mostly in the 3GPP world). Existing RADIUS 
> implementations will benefit from the work in this WG, but radical 
> changes might take a long time before they get implemented by 
> vendors.  
> Look at how long it took vendors to support Dynamic Authorization 
> (RFC3576) - most still don't support it. Similar with the 
> MessageAuthenticator attribute.
> 
> I like Jari's extended attribute for 1 reason : forwards 
> compatibility 
> with Diameter. They could be used to build a good bidirectional 
> RADIUS-DIAMETER gateway, which is difficult now, especially when 
> translating a request from DIAMETER to RADIUS.
> 
> > Like a Phoenix RADIUS seems to have risen from the ashes.  
> I therefore
> > propose that we call this version of RADIUS -- RADIUS Phoenix!!!
> >  
> >  
> 
> Heh ... I'm also a volunteer for Mozilla. Watch out with that 
> 'phoenix' 
> name, we got burned too :-)
> 
> -- 
> Jo Hermans
> 
> Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
> 

--
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/>