RE: Request for Review: RADSEC Specification

["David B. Nelson" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>]

Glen Zorn writes...

> I'm a little confused: since the recently approved charter lists 
> RadSec as a work item (even calling it out by name: '.specifications
> for Secure transports, including TCP/TLS (RADSEC) and UDP/DTLS'), 
> I'm not sure what the point of this is or what the alternatives 
> might be.

The question is whether the subject individual draft is sufficiently
complete and well written to become a WG work item.  As you may recall, we
expect WG -00 drafts to be reasonably mature.

That alternative is that it could stay as an individual draft for more
polishing, or some alternative draft fulfilling the same WG charter
milestone could be presented for consideration.


--
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/>