Re: Consensus Call on RADEXT WG re-charter

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Glen Zorn wrote:
> OK, since RFC 2865 only defines RADIUS in terms of UDP, it must not be
> the authoritative reference for "RADIUS *at all*".  What is?  I'd like
> to read it...

  The authoritative reference for RADIUS is this WG.  If the consensus
is to add bells, whistles, or flying monkeys to RADIUS, then that is our
perogative.

  The alternative is to worship at the holy shrine of the existing
RFC's, which were handed down from on high by the holy priests of
RADIUS.  As mere mortals, we are incapable of changing holy writ, and
must confess that the RFC's are perfect.

  I shall therefore submit a request to the RFC editor admitting that
RFC 5080 is blasphemy, as it points out *errors* in the original RFC's.
 It should therefore be withdrawn immediately, before the holy priests
of RADIUS burn me at the stake.

  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/>