RE: review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01.txt

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

Paul Congdon writes...

> I agree with you that we do not want to make this the default behavior
> and we should strive to make consistent extensions.  I think the
> complexity of this attribute didn't allow us to follow that path.

Well, I think that's true in the face of the RADEXT milestones, and the
desire to see this draft advance rapidly.  Given the ongoing work on
RADIUS Design Guidelines to encompass additional data types and foster
greater compatibility with Diameter AVPs, and the charter of the DIME
WG, it is not inconceivable to come up with a single "improved" filter
rule that would make RADIUS-Diameter attribute translation much easier.
It would, however, in all likelihood delay this work for many months.

It seems to me we have to decide which we value more highly: a [more]
unified data model between RADIUS and Diameter or timely delivery of the
802-related extensions in RADIUS.


--
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/>