Re: Issue: Use of the term "extended" within the Design Guidelines Document

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Dave Nelson wrote:
> After some offline discussion with our AD, Dan Romascanu, it seems the path
> we take will depend on the complexity of the changes.  Minor edits to add
> clarification can be done as part of the IESG review process, e.g. handled
> by RFC Editor Notes.
> 
> I think before pulling the draft back, let's see a proposed set of editing
> instructions on the list, e.g. s/foo/bar, and see how bad the damage is.

  Please see http://ietf.freeradius.org for some proposed changes.  I've
started from the current IETF draft, and modified it from there.  The
changes are grouped conceptually:

  (a) external review
  (b) applicability
  (c) clarification on data types

  There are 3 proposed drafts, with HTML diffs between them.

  If the changes are acceptable, we can merge them into a -06 version.
Otherwise, we can discuss the changes until they are acceptable.

  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/>