[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPv6

Glen Zorn wrote:
> No, I'm arguing what the standards _actually_ say, while you are arguing
> what you _want_ them to say.

  I can't recall making statements about what I want the standards to
say.  Perhaps you could point to one of my messages which says that?

>> Because ONE attribute is
>> of a unique complex type, it means that any attempt to use standard
>> types is useless.
> 
> It's hardly just one, but the point is that "complex" types are as standard
> as any other of those either specifically defined in RFCs or those that were
> not (like 64-bit integers) of which you apparently approve.

  Ah.  Like the "standard" attributes defined in RFC 2548, which is
"Category: Informational".

  In case you haven't read my messages, I'm *not* objecting to complex
types.  I'm objecting to the *gratuitous* use of complex types.

  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/>