[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: request to recharter

To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: request to recharter
From: "David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:04:03 -0500
In-reply-to: <008b01c86d13$290663f0$aedd787c@arubanetworks.com>
Organization: Elbrys Networks, Inc.
References: <200802111126.25340.stefan.winter@restena.lu> <008b01c86d13$290663f0$aedd787c@arubanetworks.com>

Glen Zorn writes...

> No, no, NO!  "radsec" is not RADIUS, period.  Not an extension, 
> not even a perversion, not RADIUS.

Without offering any opinion as to whether RADEXT should seek to amend its
charter to include RADSEC, let me ask why RADIUS over TLS/TCP is
conceptually so different from RADIUS over IPSec?  Seems to me that both are
RADIUS encapsulated in protected transport.  We are also considering RADIUS
over DTLS/UDP, and you don't seem to be quire so concerned about that
proposal.  Is it the use of TCP that bothers you so much?



--
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/>

References:
- request to recharter
  - From: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
- RE: request to recharter
  - From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>

Prev by Date: RE: LC cmts: Extended Attrs
Next by Date: Re: request to recharter
Previous by thread: RE: request to recharter
Next by thread: Re: request to recharter
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread