Re: IPv6

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Alan DeKok said:
> 
> "I suggest racing against the design guidelines document. After all,
> it's only a draft. If the IPv6 document can get published first, then
> the design guidelines matter a lot less."
> 
> [BA] Either the Design Guidelines advice is appropriate or it isn't.

  The comment was an attempt at humor, to counter the vitriol directed
at the design guidelines document.

> In this particular case, my take is that the Design Guidelines document
> is saying "don't do precisely what RFC 2868 did".  That is quite
> sensible.  However, it might also be helpful to say "Here are the
> problems that were caused by RFC 2868's scheme, and here is some advice
> to avoid those issues".  That way, until we finish the Extended
> Attributes document, we'll have some way to address these kind of
> situations.

  Update 2.1.1 Tag Mechanism:

Old text:

   New attributes SHOULD NOT use this tagging method because of the
   limitations described above.

New text:

   Where these limitations do not apply, new attributes MAY use this
   tagging method, though it is NOT RECOMMENDED.  Where the above
   limitations apply, this tagging method SHOULD NOT be used.


  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/>