RE: Attribute design thoughts (was RE: New Technical Issues RE: WG last call in progress on VLAN/Priority Draft)

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

Dan Romascanu writes...
 
> The WG has already a number of RADIUS extensions documents in a more
> advance phase than the Design Guidelines.

Yes.  Although the Design Guidelines was originally one of the first
milestones in the WG charter, so this was not supposed to happen.

> Is the proposal to hold those waiting for the reference to review
> against, ...

We plan to stick to our current milestones.  If rough consensus is
achieved on the Design Guidelines, that should serve as the basis for
review for some of the later deliverables.  There is not plan to hold up
documents scheduled to be forwarded to the IESG prior to such a
consensus being formed on Design Guidelines.  Such documents are being
reviewed against past practice, and on an ad-hoc basis as to the current
thoughts of WG members on attribute design.

> ...or would these be treated as part of the already approved and try
to
> make the guidelines backwards compatible with them?

I suppose that factors into the consensus opinion.  It would seem
unfortunate to publish Proposed Standards RFCs that do not comport well
with the Design Guidelines BCP.  The timing is unfortunate, but we are
doing our best to manage to the current milestones.

> Moreover, does the WG considers this within the scope of the Design
> Guidelines document, or do we need more clarification or even an
extension 
> of the charter?

I think it is understood to be within the scope of the Design Guidelines
document, as per the current charter.  If there is confusion as to the
purpose and scope of that document, comment from others within the WG
would be welcomed.

-- 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/>