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

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

I don't think you have consensus on this issue David.  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 4:39 PM
> To: Avi Lior; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Is it okay to break RADIUS? (was RADIUS V2) 
> 
> 
> Avi Lior writes...
> 
> > Oh please!!!
> > 
> > After months of telling me and others that our "sub-types" 
> attributes
> were
> > breaking RADIUS - when they were clearly NOT.
> 
> Given the definition of "break" that we were using at that 
> time (maintaining compatibility with data dictionary driven 
> implementations) and given that there was no standard method 
> of encapsulating sub-types within IETF standard attributes, I 
> think my previous statements were accurate. 
> 
> > You of all people should not make statements such as this.
> 
> I fear you are starting to personalize the issues.  I am 
> relaying a statement of the current WG and charter direction 
> as driven by the IESG, in my capacity of Co-Chair.  This is 
> one of those "tell it like it is" statements.  I see no 
> reason why you should feel me disqualified to pass along this 
> information.
> 
> -- 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/>