RE: Proposed Resolution of Issue #318: REJECT

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

Bernard Aboba [mailto://bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] writes:

> Alan DeKok said:
> 
> "This issue should be rejected.
> 
>   RADIUS specifications define format, meaning, interpretations, and
> processing requirements for attributes.  Two implementations that
> disagree about an attribute can inter-operate at the RADIUS level by
> exchanging RADIUS packets.  They cannot be said have interoperable
> implementations of the attribute."
> 
> Given that the Design Guidelines document has already been approved for
> publication by the IESG, 

I hate to repeat myself, but this statement is STILL FALSE.

> the bar for making changes is extremely high.
> 
> In this case, that bar does not appear to have been reached.
> 
> The assertion is that interoperability issues cannot be created by a
> mismatch of RADIUS data types and therefore that normative language
> cannot be used.

That may be Alan's assertion, but it's not mine.  My assertion is that
correctly implemented code changes (maybe that's asking too much?) do not
effect interoperability, nor does requiring such cause harm.

...


--
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/>