Re: Consensus Call on RADEXT WG re-charter

[Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>]

Glen Zorn wrote:
...
>> 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...

  No.  I didn't mention an HTTPS to FTP proxy as being HTTP.

> 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'.

  The protocols being transported on IPv4 can also be transported on
IPv6.  Similarly, UDP transport + RADIUS application protocol is...
RADIUS.  TCP transport + RADIUS application protocol is... RADIUS.

  The only way to call RadSec something other than RADIUS is if you say
that FTP over IPv6 is not FTP.  After all, FTP was for IPv4, and IPv6 is
a new-fangled transport... so FTP over IPv6 is not FTP... it's "magic".

  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/>