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

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

I am taking Bernards advice and further communication on this topic will be
taken to the IESG.

But I must respond to this email since you are accusing me of making things
up.

This is what David Nelson stated in an email that started this conversation:

Avi Lior wrote:
> In this case though "base RADIUS" does "break".  All end-points (final 
> RADIUS servers and clients) will have to parse this new attribute
type.
> No?

David Nelso wrote:
Yes.  The charter has evolved, and the original desire to not "break"
existing RADIUS implementations (in particular data dictionary driven
implementations) has yielded to the desire to obtain better interoperability
with Diameter, simplify RADIUS/Diameter translation requirements, and to
unify the IETF standard, SDO-Specific and Vendor-Specific attribute data
models.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:14 AM
> To: Avi Lior; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Is it okay to break RADIUS? (was RADIUS V2) 
> 
> 
> Avi Lior writes...
> 
> > 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
> 
> I did not state that.  Please be more accurate with your 
> attributions. This whole thread is a "tempest in a teapot", IMHO.
> 
> -- 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/>