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

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

owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org <> scribbled on Saturday, April 19, 2008
7:47 PM:

> Glen Zorn writes...
> 
>> The first thing to be addressed is the (bogus) usage of the term
>> "backward compatibility" in the proposed charter.  PLEASE replace it
>> with "interoperable" or a synonym thereof.
> 
> With all due respect, this seems to me like another "name game" issue.
> Let's worry more about what we want the properties to be, and
> less about what we call it

A wonderful attitude, except that the only thing the IETF produces is
words; therefore, it behooves us to make sure that those words are
correct.  It's not a game (or if it is, it's the only one in (our)
town).

> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>