RE: FW: [Fwd: Question regarding draft-ietf-radext-design-05.txt.]

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

Alan DeKok writes...

>>> "Can lead ...".  The text is describing common practices and 
>>> deployments.  The only reason to change the text is if those 
>>> practices are not, in fact, in common use.
>> 
>> But these type of statements are used against draft authors who
>> decided to pick a different format and then we have all these
>> discussions. 
>> 
>> I think it would be useful to provide a bit more context, as 
>> argued a few paragraphs above. 
>
>  Ok.  We should be able to make it clearer that the opinions
> against complex attributes are SHOULD NOT.

Hmmm...  Two thoughts on this:

(1) Since the Design Guidelines are to be a BCP, guidance about design
choices, short of a major security flaw or a redesign of the RADIUS base
protocol, will end up being a SHOULD or SHOULD NOT.  MUST and MUST NOT will
be rare.

(2) At some level, RADIUS Design Guidelines will likely be as popular with
certain developers as corporate coding style guidelines.  :-)  That's the
nature of the beast.  Having said that, if the guidelines value everyone's
individual design styles equally, then the guidelines serve no purpose.  The
value in creating a RECOMMENED design style is in achieving a certain level
of uniformity.  There is a fine balance to be struck between standardization
and creative expression.



--
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/>