Re: RADEXT Issue 255 (NAS Management Authorization)

["Greg Weber" <gdweber@gmail.com>]

>> Should we develop acronyms NETCONFS and SNMPS and CLIS so we can just
>> lump the non-secure and secure versions into Configuration-based, and
>> Polling-based names and so on?
>
> I don't think that this document is the right vehicle to define new
> nomenclature for existing management services and protocols.
>
> I'm open to devising some clarifying text here, but I think we need to keep
> the scope of semantics for this attribute narrow, i.e. limited to indication
> of the management application-layer protocol.

Slightly less diplomatically, RADEXT is having trouble tying its own
shoestrings.  We don't need to worry about the shoes of others...

--
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/>