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

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

Kuntal Chowdhury 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.
> 
> Sorry to hear that IETF/IESG may take the direction of NOT listing to
what
> the industry has to say. It is rather dangerous to let a few people to
> decide what the industry will do.

It is not my position to speak for the IESG.  However, the changes in
the proposed charter text that I have reported were made by members of
the IESG to resolve comments received from members of the IETF community
during the proposed charter comment period.  That's the way the process
works.

Backwards compatibility with existing RADIUS RFCs is still a strong
requirement for all RADEXT WG work.

-- 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/>