Re: Consensus Call on RADEXT WG re-charter

[Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>]

Glen Zorn wrote:
> Given the Co-Chair's response to the question of the meaning of
> "backward compatibility", I think that it would show considerably more
> intellectual honesty to simply remove the first bullet: "compatibility"
> defined by the feasibility of implementing a protocol gateway is
> essentially meaningless, since by that measure there are no two
> protocols that are not "compatible".

  While that's true, a RadSec to RADIUS gateway involves terminating
TCP, TLS, and forwarding the contents to RADIUS.  If this isn't RADIUS,
then by the same standards, any HTTPS to HTTP proxy isn't doing HTTP.

  Similarly, any IPv4 to IPv6 gateway is evil, because it involves
changing the transport layers underneath the application-layer protocol.

  And finally, SIP allows for both UDP and TCP transports, each with the
option (or not) of using TLS.  There would seem to be obvious parallels
between SIP and RADIUS here.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>