RE: Consensus Call on RADEXT WG re-charter

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

owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org <> scribbled on Monday, April 14, 2008
11:39 PM:

> 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. 

Hmm.  By that standard, it would seem that Diameter is RADIUS, too...

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

I don't think that I said anything about good or evil :-), but you make
my point for me: IPv6 is hardly "backward compatible" w/IPv4 & that's
not a problem.  The problem would arise if someone claimed that it was
because, 'Well, you can build a gateway'.

> 
>  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.

Certainly, in that RADIUS (the RFC 2865 version, anyway) only allows UDP
transport.  How could I have missed that? ;-)

> 
>  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/>



--
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/>