RE: Progress on RADIUS Extension for Digest Authentication

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Nelson, David <> wrote:
> Glen Zorn writes (regarding the keywrap draft)...
> 
>> Has anybody called for consensus from the WG?
> 
> No.  Not so far.
> 
>> I like this plan!  Let's 1) rubberstamp a flawed document,
insuring
>> 2) either massive upgrades or (more likely) non-action later
because
>> 3) we can't make a decision on anything of substance in less than
2
>> years.
> 
> Well, since RADEXT has been in existence for about 4 months, the
> comment about 2 years is probably an exaggeration.  :-) 

I call it wild hyperbole, myself, if I hadn't been referring to the
IETF in general...

> 
> If 3GPP2 can wait for us to do the right thing, I'd prefer that
> approach as well. 

I see no reason to assume that waiting would be necessary: the
document in question has been widely reviewed already, both within
and outside the co-authors' respective companies; the reviewers have
included at least one IESG member.  There can't be _that_ much wrong
with it!  So, if I may be so bold as to suggest a plan of action:

1) Issue a call for consensus on accepting the document as a WG item
today.
2) If consensus is positive, ask the authors to submit a renamed
version of the doc.
3) Upon submission of the revised document, immediately issue WG
Last Call on it (as many people have observed, Last Call is the best
(if not only) way to get people to read a draft anyway) :-(
4) If the key-wrap draft bogs down in any way during LC, just
advance the Digest Auth draft as is; otherwise make the minor
modifications necessary and advance it.

> 
> -- Dave

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by
simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel


--
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/>