RE: Continued discussion of RADIUS Crypto-Agility

["Stephen Hanna" <shanna@juniper.net>]

Thanks, Dan. I'm glad you did suggest that we consider the
RADSEC work. Now we can consider the alternatives on their
technical merits and set aside the charter or process questions
for the moment (to be revisited if necessary).

I have asked Juniper's RADIUS experts to join us for this
discussion. They should be here within a few hours. Sorry
for the delay.

Thanks,

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 1:12 PM
To: Glen Zorn (gwz); David B. Nelson
Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Continued discussion of RADIUS Crypto-Agility



 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Glen Zorn (gwz)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:08 PM
> To: David B. Nelson
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Continued discussion of RADIUS Crypto-Agility
> 
> David B. Nelson <> allegedly scribbled on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:25
> AM:
> 
> > Glen Zorn writes...
> > 
> >> To 1) ignore our charter (not to mention the (at best) 
> disingenuous 
> >> '?' regarding it in the presentation)...
> > 
> > To be fair, the authors of this ID did indicate they knew 
> it was out 
> > of charter scope, and therefore not eligible for the Crypto-Agility 
> > solution, at the time that they requested the presentation slot in 
> > RADEXT.  The "?" apparently came about as a result of 
> discussions in 
> > the O&M Area WG earlier in the week.
> 
> So can we appropriately blame this nonsense (surprise!) on the IESG? 
> 

If finding somebody to blame solves the problem or at least half of it,
I'll step ahead :-)

Seriously, I was the one to recommend the author to ask for a time slot
on the RADEXT agenda. I believe that the RADSEC work is if not within at
least related to the WG scope (but not necessarily as a crypto-agility
solution), although undertaking it would mean an extension of the
charter. I believe it was good for the working group to hear it and
discuss whether there is consensus to include it as a future work item.
This discussion is happening right now, and it's good. 

Dan


--
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/>

--
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/>