RE: REMINDER: RADEXT WG Last Call on Design Guidelines Document

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

>   Leaving it open ended might not be catastrophic.  The rest of RADIUS
> is open ended.

It might not be catastrophic.  OTOH, just because there are so many "issues"
that arise because RADIUS is so open-ended, the engineer in me wants to
"fix" some of that, at least in any new features we introduce.

>   e.g. I just ran into devices with multiple interfaces that send
> Accounting-Requests from IP (1) for Start/Stop, and from IP (2) for
> Interim-Updates.
> 
>   Since this isn't forbidden by the specs, they have no interest in
> fixing it.  It's everyone *else* that has to butcher their systems in
> order to deal with such nonsense.

Yeah, well that's the kind of thing that motivates me to craft tighter
specifications for new features we're adding to RADIUS.  We can't fix the
past, but we don't need to add fuel to the fire, either.


--
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/>