RE: Request for Review: RADSEC Specification

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

Glen Zorn writes...

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

RADEXT has been slow in making progress at times, but I think this
particular policy has no direct bearing on that.  It has neither speeded up
nor slowed down the rate of progress.  The root cause of the "rate of
progress" issue lies elsewhere.

> 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?

There is a procedural separation of concerns between adding a work item to a
WG charter and adopting a specific individual draft as the WG's chosen
vehicle to complete that work item.  As a WG chair yourself, I suspect that
you understand that distinction.  I'm not saying that I expect a competing
document to be offered up.  I'm simply answering your process question.
There are separate process steps;  we are following them.



--
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/>