RE: Continued discussion of RADIUS Crypto-Agility

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> allegedly scribbled on
Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:12 AM:

...

> 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. 

OK, I'm confused: the scope of a WG is _not_ defined by its charter?  If
the charter doesn't define the scope of a WG, what does?

> 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.   

Just a historical note: in the beginnings of Diameter development, the
adoption of TCP as a transport for RADIUS between servers was discussed
at length (how this perfectly reasonable idea evolved into TCP/SCTP
everywhere I don't know).  If the IESG's goal is still to avoid having
RADIUS & Diameter compete then adopting RADSEC is a very bad idea. 
  
> 
> 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/>