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

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> Ok... so should it be Experimental, or Informational?
> 
> FWIW, I'd say Informational.  That is what we did for RFC 5176, since
> its original implementation had so many warts.  Where there were
> potential fixes, we pointed them out, but since the goal was to
> describe what was implemented, we could not break backward
> compatibility by inserting MUST/MUST NOT language to outlaw
> poor practices (e.g. the original specification enabled replay
> attacks). 

  OK.  The next version will be marked "Informational".

  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/>