Dave points out.... > > Mauricio Sanchez writes... > > > Wasn't there a draft previously that talked to making the RADIUS > > message format a bit more Diameter-like? > > Yes. > > > What happened to that draft? > > It was discussed at IETF-65, and maybe a little on the list. > There was substantial push-back. Some folks didn't like the > idea of extending RADIUS, some didn't like the Diameter > format, and others has their own favorite format for and > extended attribute. In short, no consensus. > > > Maybe that could be used as a beginning for this problem? > > Yes, I think so. We first need to agree that there is a > problem. Some think that the "problem" is simply failing to > migrate to Diameter. We then need to renew the discussion, > with the idea of finding an acceptable solution. > > > I assume you're about to propose that this general problem be a WG > > work item? > > There is currently a milestone on our charter page for > Extended Attributes. It is a normative dependency of the > Design Guidelines document. Sounds like this topic would be good to add to the agenda of the upcoming meeting. Who's sheparding the design guidelines draft these days? Maybe that person could MC the debate. Or perhaps the person that did the original extended attributes draft. MS
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature