RE: Consensus Call on RADEXT WG re-charter

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>]

Alan DeKok writes...

>   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.

I can see both sides of this argument.  It's a common and desirable practice
that application layer protocols are designed to be transport-agnostic.
Some are; some aren't.  In the case of RADIUS, the original task was to
document RADIUS pretty much "as implemented" by Livingston Enterprises,
Merit Networks, and a few others.  Use of the UDP transport got "hard-wired"
into the RFC.  Maybe UDP is "crucial" to RADIUS being RADIUS, maybe it's an
artifact.
 
>   The only way to call RadSec something other than RADIUS is if you say
> that FTP over IPv6 is not FTP.

Well, FTP runs over TCP.  The similar thing that runs over UDP is called
TFTP.  Maybe that example doesn't make your point as well you'd have liked.

There may be good reasons to "hard-wire" an application layer protocol to a
particular transport layer.  There are also cases when that "hard-wiring"
happens as a matter of default, convenience, or lack of explicit
consideration, rather than as a matter of design or architecture.  I think
we could argue ad infinitum into which category we should slot RFC 2865
RADIUS.  :-)

However, if the WG decides that RADIUS (the application protocol) can be
transport-agnostic, I see no reason to get hung up on "naming rights".



--
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/>