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

RE: RADEXT WG Consensus call on acceptance of RADSEC as a work item

To: "'Stephen Hanna'" <shanna@juniper.net>
Subject: RE: RADEXT WG Consensus call on acceptance of RADSEC as a work item
From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:53:09 -0400
Cc: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <A6398B0DB62A474C82F61554EE93728704F9BAE3@proton.jnpr.net>
References: <BLU137-DS3A238BFF835F92E7F67E8930A0@phx.gbl> <A6398B0DB62A474C82F61554EE93728704F9BAE3@proton.jnpr.net>

owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org <> scribbled on Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:36
PM:

> I am in favor of having RADSEC as a RADEXT WG work item. This
> specification clearly meets the needs of an important group of RADIUS
> users. 

Actually, it meets the needs of _no_ group of RADIUS users, since it is
not RADIUS.  It does appear that RADSEC (not the current draft, which is
ill-specified at best) is useful to quite a few AAA users but that is an
entirely different thing.

...



--
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/>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RADEXT WG Consensus call on acceptance of RADSEC as a work item
  - From: Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>

References:
- RADEXT WG Consensus call on acceptance of RADSEC as a work item
  - From: <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com>
- RE: RADEXT WG Consensus call on acceptance of RADSEC as a work item
  - From: "Stephen Hanna" <shanna@juniper.net>

Prev by Date: RE: RADEXT WG Consensus call on acceptance of RADSEC as a work item
Next by Date: Re: RADEXT WG Consensus call on acceptance of RADSEC as a work item
Previous by thread: RE: RADEXT WG Consensus call on acceptance of RADSEC as a work item
Next by thread: Re: RADEXT WG Consensus call on acceptance of RADSEC as a work item
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread