RE: Discussion of Issue 146 (fwd)

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

Nagi Reddy Jonnala writes...

> I'm not in favor of deprecating and adding the new objects either.

So then we're looking at clarifying existing behavior as described in
the current RFCs, rather than correcting any potential errata in those
RFCs?

> The comments I quoted hold good for the then implementation I worked
> on. I don't know what other implementation's interpretations are.

Alan DeKok was kind enough to share his implementation report.  Perhaps
others would be so kind as to follow suit?  (Hint, hint.)

> One way could be to do the math once again and ensure that the
> equations hold good for at least the intended interpretations. 
> If there is a problem, then there is something wrong and a 
> clarification should be added.

My opinion is that if the equations are wrong, and we wish to change
them, then the correct thing to do is to deprecate the objects.
Remember, the MIB must pass MIB Doctor and IESG review, so a convenient
"shortcut" for the WG may not pass MIB review.  If the equations are
wrong, and we simply wish to point that out, we could retain the current
objects.

-- 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/>