Re: Fwd: draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02 editorials (fwd)

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

David B. Nelson wrote:
> Given that the intended scope of this draft is to document an implemented
> but heretofore undocumented practice, it seems inappropriate that this draft
> would Update any other RFCs, be they Standards Track or Informational.
> 
> In publishing this draft, the WG does not intend revise any aspects of the
> RADIUS operational model.  We wish acknowledge what's been deployed, without
> raising the status of that deployment so as to create defacto changes to the
> de jure RADIUS protocol.  Perhaps it's a fine line to tread...

  Ok... so should it be Experimental, or Informational?

  There was also some discussion at one point of making it Proposed
Standard, but I don't think the consensus is going that way.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>