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

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Well lets see:

Previous claims that subtypes break radius - "break radius" was tied to
breaking dictionaries.  And I and others agreed that it is not a good idea
to break dictionaries. 

Note Sterman and prepaid drafts did not break dictionaries because they used
fundemental RADIUS types.

Now we are breaking radius for real (as you stated) but we don't want to
call it that anymore......hmmmmmmmmmmmm
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 6:17 PM
> To: Avi Lior; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Is it okay to break RADIUS? (was RADIUS V2) 
> 
> 
> Avi Lior writes...
> 
> > Whether or not you are allowed to break RADIUS.
> 
> No one wants to "break" RADIUS.  Not the WG, not the IESG, 
> not the IETF. The requirement is still to avoid "breaking" 
> RADIUS.  However, the term "break" is inexact in the absence 
> of some technical definition.  The statements about 
> maintaining backwards compatibility with existing RADIUS RFCs 
> are the current technical definition of what it means to not 
> "break" RADIUS.
> 
> -- 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/>