Re: Summary: Consensus call on RADEXT WG re-charter

[Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

one suggested correction: over the course of the discussion, it seemed
that splitting TCP transport into an own document was deemed worthwhile.

Such a document should be added to the milestones. Since the document
probably makes use of Status-Server, and the TCP+TLS work in turn uses
the TCP transport document, it should have an intermediate place in the
timeline. Like

Goals and Milestones:
Jun 2008 RADIUS Design Guidelines submitted as a Best Current Practice RFC
Jun 2008 RADIUS Management Authorization I-D submitted as a Proposed
Standard RFC
Sep 2008 RADIUS Crypto-agility Requirements submitted as an
Informational RFC
Sep 2008 Extended Attributes I-D submitted as a Proposed Standard RFC
Dec 2008 IEEE 802 Attributes I-D submitted as a Proposed Standard RFC
Mar 2009 Status-Server I-D submitted as a Proposed Standard RFC

Mar 2009 Non-UDP Transport Considerations I-D submitted as Proposed
Standard(?) RFC

Apr 2009 RADSEC (RADIUS over TCP/TLS) draft submitted as an Experimental RFC
June 2009 RADIUS over DTLS I-D submitted as an Experimental RFC
June 2009 RADIUS Cryptographic Algorithm Agility I-D submitted as an
Experimental RFC

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIGAem+jm90f8eFWYRAj/cAJ4kNB2JNz9Z/A4ufpc/GOaW3kgIJACcDPwc
uj+tmcB6Eminto3/2sjhDyw=
=Xg8K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
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/>