RE: Meaning of "backward compatible" WAS RE: Consensus Call on RADEXT WG re-charter

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

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com> scribbled on Wednesday,
April 16, 2008 1:46 PM:

> Can you guys try to agree on a paragraph which explains what
> 'backward compatibility' means in the context of this charter?

The term is meaningless in the context of this charter & should be
removed or at the very least _highly_ qualified.  Saying (as the
currently proposed charter does) that "All RADIUS work MUST be backward
compatible with existing RADIUS RFCs" is just absurd.  That said, the
following paragraph would work, Think:

- All documents produced MUST specify means of interoperation with
legacy RADIUS implementations and, if possible, be backward 
compatible with existing RADIUS RFCs, including RFCs 2865-2869, 
3162, 3575, 3579, 3580, 4668-4673,4675, 5080, 5090 and 5176.

> 
> It seems to me that this is the principal item of disagreement in
> this debate. 
> 
> Dan
> 

...



--
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/>