Re: Guidelines suggested text for checklist:

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

David B. Nelson wrote:
> I think this text is problematic.  I agree that VSAs should be used for
> attributes not requiring [any | very much] interoperability, and as
> specified in the RADIUS Extended Attributes draft.  Saying that attributes
> defined for use in an SDO, or in a group of SDOs, fall into this category
> bothers me very much.

  SDOs will do whatever they want within their attribute space.  This
text is trying to recognize that reality.

>  After all, what is the IETF but yet another SDO?  I
> presume that _all_ SDOs produce specifications that expect a significant
> level of multi-vendor interoperability.  Otherwise, why would they bother?
> I don't think we want to say that multi-vendor interoperability is a concept
> that is unique to the IETF.

  SDO inter-operability is an issue strictly for the SDOs, not for the IETF.

  Text can be added to the document to clarify it.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>