Hi, > As the chairs have pointed out, the WG has almost completed its work & > it seems like the only thing being considered to continue radext is > radsec. So if there is not enough work to justify a WG (something I > doubt very much) then it doesn't seem to justify the continuation of > radext, either. Just publish an Informational RFC & be done with it. > BTW, what do the members of the "worldwide-operating roaming consortium" > think about giving up change control to the IETF (or do they think that > we will simply rubberstamp this work of sheer genius)? It is clear to everyone that change control goes to the IETF. It is not at all a problem. We are in the lucky position that we don't have any commercial interest or pressure, but do this work for (excuse the pathos) "the greater good of humanity" - at least the subset of humanity we are concerned with: educational users and researchers. As such, we have no interest in locked-down Intellectual Property. In fact, being a (former) GPL programmer, I have an open source guy's typical aversion against closed, IPO'ed, NDA'ed stuff. Regarding the "genius" part: I'm aware that there are several parts in the current draft that need to be looked over carefully and modified, as the discussion of the last few days has already shown. I'm happy that the discussion is happening, that improvements are pointed out etc. Actually, the discussion almost looks like WG work on it has already begun :-) Greetings, Stefan -- Stefan WINTER Stiftung RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche Ingenieur Forschung & Entwicklung 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg E-Mail: stefan.winter@restena.lu Tel.: +352 424409-1 http://www.restena.lu Fax: +352 422473
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.