RE: Pre-work item review

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

Greg Weber <> supposedly scribbled:

...

>>> RADIUS Extensions for IEEE 802
>>> 
>>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-congdon-radext-ieee802-03.
tx
>> t
> 
> I support the ideas here, but it's unclear if the current draft is
> compliant with the 'backward compatibility' 
> bullet in the charter.  The current text adds data types to RADIUS
> for 'extended' attributes (e.g. UInt64??). 
> One of the co-authors mentioned in MSP that they're moving away
from
> 'extended attributes', but it's kinda hard to see if it's
compliant
> with our charter based on 'planned' changes to the draft. 

This is pertinent to a question I asked in my own response to this
question.  My (imperfect) understanding of the IETF process is that
once a draft is adopted as a WG item, change control is ceded to the
IETF and that whatever state the draft is in when so adopted becomes
irrelevant (as do, to some extent, the opinions of the authors).
IMHO, a better way to ask this question might have been to ask the
WG if they thought that updating the old MIBs was important enough
to work on, whether the questions of IEEE 802 attributes (including
whether they are necessary at all) were interesting, etc., instead
of just presenting a laundry list of individual submissions.  OTOH,
this assumes that WGs are formed to solve problems, rather than to
produce approved documents; maybe that's not the way things are.

> 
> Greg

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/>