[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Discussion of the RADIUS data model (was RE: New Technical Issues RE: WG last call in progress on VLAN/Priority Draft)
- To: "Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>
- Subject: RE: Discussion of the RADIUS data model (was RE: New Technical Issues RE: WG last call in progress on VLAN/Priority Draft)
- From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:46:09 -0800
- Cc: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Nelson, David <> supposedly scribbled:
...
>
> I agree that the right balance is important. My feeling is that we
> need more formality in the RADIUS data model that we have now (which
> is pretty minimal) to enhance interoperability going forwards, and
> allow server vendors who wish to design data dictionary driven
> implementations to do so. Exactly how much more is the topic we
> should be debating.
>
> I've noticed, BTW, that no one on the list has taken up Greg Weber's
> invitation to directly comment upon his latest RADIUS Design
> Guidelines draft. We seem to be having some of that discussion, in a
> meta-discussion sense, in this thread though. I suppose that simply
> validates the observation that WG's don't really engage in discussing
> any document until WGLC. :-)
I suggest that WGs do their best work in a non-linear fashion and further, that documents are in fact the tangible expression of that work, rather than ends in and of themselves.
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/>