Yes, there has been a popular upswell of support for abandoning our work in favor of yours -- oh, wait, that would be you again...
[BA] Completion of the existing RADEXT WG work items has always been a precondition for re-chartering. There has never been a discussion of "abandoning" existing work items. Once the Design Guidelines, Management Attributes and Extended Attributes documents complete WG last call and
are forwarded to the IESG, the remaining work items left will be theIEEE 802 attributes document, and the Crypto-agility draft. At that point a discussion of Re-Chartering would be appropriate.
No, no, NO! "radsec" is not RADIUS, period. Not an extension, not even a perversion, not RADIUS. I would support a radsec BOF & WG, but I will not support this.
[BA] The IETF process involves "rough consensus and running code". During the RADEXT WG re-charter discussion, the opinion of all WG participants will be taken into account. With respect to RADSEC, the minutes of IETF 69 show that as part of the crypto-agility portion of the meeting, there was a consensus call on potential solutions, and that RADSEC got considerable support. We did not follow up with a consensus call on the list since RADSEC was outside the RADEXT WG charter. However, during a re-charter discussion, this and other potential WG work items will be open to discussion.
-- 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/>