RE: Is it okay to break RADIUS? (was RADIUS V2)

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Parviz Yegani writes...

> >I will also observe that the changes in the pending charter that (a)
> >emphasize RADIUS/Diameter interoperability and migration, (b)
encourage
> >rationalization of attribute data models and (c) require
considerations
> >for complex data types, were introduced during the IESG review of the
> >charter.  It is my understanding that these changes are not subject
to
> >WG consensus.
> 
> So, are you saying that the IESG in its infinite wisdom is
recommending
> that we can break Radius to achieve (a)-(c) above?

Of course not.

The goal is to achieve (a) - (c) while maintaining backwards
compatibility with existing RADIUS RFCs and forward compatibility with
existing Diameter RFCs (and nearly-RFCs).  When we use the term "break"
RADIUS, it implies change it in a non-backwards compatible fashion.  At
one point in time our definition of "break" meant "requires core parser
code changes in data dictionary driven RADIUS implementations".  We have
backed off from that definition.  It is now allowable for some code
changes to be required to take advantage of the new features, but the
changes must be designed so that existing implementations SHOULD ignore
the new attributes.

-- 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/>