RE: Revisions to RFC 4005

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

Alan DeKok writes...

>   However it is done, it looks like we have to update 4005 to 
> obtain Diameter compatibility for the extended attributes.

That part of the problem will need to be addressed by the extended
attributes draft, because our charter requires a Diameter compatibility
section in any of our work products, to address interoperability with
Diameter.  It's not so clear that we need to address the issue of "legacy"
(RADIUS Classic) VSAs in Diameter at the same time, or at least in the same
document.  Of course, if one mechanism serves both purposes, so much the
better.
[gwz] 
[gwz] 
Just for the sake of findability (don't think that that's actually a word,
but hopefully you know what I mean), I wiuld think that that kind of update
would be better addressed in a document that had "Diameter" in the title.



--
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/>