RE: request to recharter

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

Bernard Aboba <> scribbled on Monday, February 11, 2008 6:13 PM:

>> 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.  

I didn't say "work items", I said "work", meaning RADIUS.  This is a new
& different protocol, more akin to Diameter than RADIUS & does not
belong in this WG.

> 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 the IEEE 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. 

Fine, just change the WG name "radsec" as well.


--
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/>