RE: RADEXT WG Last Call on "RADIUS Delegated IPv6 Prefix Attribute"

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

Emile van Bergen writes...

> Before disregarding C structures as proper solutions, I think that
each
> alternative solution should be carefully applied to the problem to see
> how it plays out. This process is only just beginning in the WG, and
> deprecating all existing practice *now* seems rather premature.

Are you suggesting that the RADEXT WG work items of RADIUS Attribute
Design Guidelines and RADIUS Extended Attributes should be applied
*only* to RADIUS related I-Ds that are submitted *after* RADEXT
completes its work on all the other extensions on its charter?  IMHO, it
would be cynical, to say the least, that we establish design guidelines
and new attribute formats for others but exempt ourselves from paying
heed to them.  Do as I say, not as I 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/>