RE: Request for Review: RADSEC Specification

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

David B. Nelson [mailto://d.b.nelson@comcast.net] writes:

> 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.

Hmm, yes, a policy that has worked wonders in speeding up progress...

> 
> 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.

OK, so I thought that the lengthy discussion of whether or not to add RadSec
as a work item was about the protocol as described in the existing draft; we
even talked about some of the changes necessary to this document.  Am I to
understand that those debates were actually about adopting some theoretical
concept of RADIUSoTLS/TCP as a work item?

...



--
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/>