RE: Scope of applicability for CUI

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

Avi Lior writes...

> We are not looking for consensus of the use cases.  I don't 
> belive that we would ever achieve consensus on the list for 
> all or even most use cases.

But isn't achieving a level of "rough consensus" a fundamental
cornerstone of the IETF process?  Are you recommending that the WG
standardize the syntax of CUI without standardizing the semantics (which
I believe requires understanding the use cases)?

> > Is there another, more satisfying, resolution to this
> > apparent paradox?
> 
> I don't see a paradox but lets just agree to disagree and 
> move on.

Well, if there *is* a paradox, then I don't see how we can "move on".  I
assert that one property of formal standards definition (such as IETF
Standards Track protocols) is that they don't contain any mysteries,
unresolved paradoxes, or other points of ambiguity or likely confusion.
The "document quality" requirement for standards is that anyone
reasonably well practiced in the art can read the document and create an
interoperable implementation, without external hints or context.
 
> And even if I agree there is a paradox.  I don't think all 
> paradoxes need to be solved.

In IETF Standards Track protocols they do!  :-)


--
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/>