RE: The RADIUS attribute space: an assessment

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

Glen Zorn writes...
 
> > Why would that be a better idea?  Except, perhaps, on some
> > self-congratulatory level?
> 
> Thanks for the insult.

No insult intended.  My point is that an attempt by the IESG to suppress
RADIUS extensions work will ultimately fail, and serve only an
ivory-tower "Diameter wins, RADIUS loses" sort of objective. 

> It's not at all clear to me that Diameter (as specified) is actually a
> "better" protocol but at least it doesn't have the problem Bernard
> mentions; in any case, we're not talking about killing RADIUS, here,
but
> whether to take heroic measures to keep it alive.

Well, yes.  But you have authored several I-Ds that once could
characterize as "heroic measures" to extend RADIUS and you told us
during IETF-65 you were working on a method to extend the RADIUS PDU
limit beyond 4095.  But perhaps you've changed your opinion, as all of
us are wont to do from time to time.

> That would be near-suicidal for interoperability, of course.  Oh wait,
> that might mean that RADIUS would go away...no wonder there is no
visible
> advantage.

If the likely disastrous outcome of poor interoperability would actually
prevent such further work, you might have a good point.  I suspect that
it would not, and what we would end up with would be different,
non-interoperable "dialects" of RADIUS promulgated by various SDOs, and
possibly by vendors as well.


--
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/>