Yes, at the same time Working Group meetings and mail lists can discuss items that are candidates for future work. This includes items that do not belong strictly within a current charter, but may become part of an extended charter later.
We can certainly entertain a discussion of whether RADSEC is appropriate as a RADEXT WG work item. However, I am not entirely clear that this question is relevant to the current crypto-agility discussion (although I'm certainly willing to be convinced otherwise).
For practical reasons, the discussion has primarily centered on mechanisms applying to the RADIUS protocol as defined in RFC 2865. Virtually all RADIUS implementations today are based on UDP, and this is likely to remain the case for the forseeable future. Therefore, unless we think it is likely that RADIUS will migrate to TCP transport *exclusively*, then a crypto-agility solution needs to be provided for UDP transport as well. As a result, RADSEC cannot be considered a solution to the RADIUS crypto-agility problem as currently posed, though perhaps a combination of DTLS and RADSEC could qualify.
-- 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/>