RE: Consideration of draft-lior-radius-attribute-type-extension-02.txt

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

[gwz] ...
FWIW I also think that RADSEC should be  a WG item also but I am aware that 
some people are vehemently against that for reasons that are less 
apparent...
[gwz] Since I am one of those people, let me try to further clarify my
reasons for opposition.  Very simply, RADSEC is not RADIUS & this is the
RADIUS Extensions WG.  RADSEC changes virtually everything in RADIUS except
the format of the packets & attributes.  This must be considered a new
protocol, IMHO.  If the RADSEC folks want to have a BOF & try to convince
the IETF that we should work on standardizing this arguably good idea (at
least in the context of server<->server communication, I'm not convinced
about client<->server) I wouldn't oppose that at all, since that's the way
we deal with new protocols around here, AFAIK.

...


--
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/>