RE: capabilities problem

["Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

This email and the previous one from Emile seems to be suggesting that I
am promoting a solution --  That I am "pounding on it" I resent that
strongly. 

Since Bernard's email I have been discussion only requirements!!!

But I also want to point out for the record that it is only few that are
opposing the solution proposed in the draft. 

For example, in Paris there was lots of support and I don't belive
anyone rejected it.

But be that as it may, as I have demonstrated I am willing to shed the
old and discuss requirements.

So lets move on and both Emile and Bernard stop the presonal attacks!!!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 6:08 PM
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: capabilities problem
> 
> Emile Bergen said:
> 
> "Few seem to have joined you in blessing the original 
> capabilities advertising draft as a candidate for a solution 
> that even reaches the required level of precision and generality.
> 
> To do so is premature, and it would help if you didn't keep 
> pounding on it."
> 
> Indeed.  To put the point more forcefully -- continued 
> attempts to advocate for the original capabilities 
> advertisement draft are not productive.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>
> 

--
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/>