RE: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document

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

Wojciech Dec writes...

> Based on this and previous heated threads, it's my impression
> that the topic of complex attributes and how they're described
> / dealt with in the "Design Guidelines" document has been and
> clearly continues to be a bone of contention...

The heated debate over complex attributes is as old as the WG itself.  I
fully realize that there are a few WG members who are still unhappy with the
rough consensus that was formed on this issue.

> ... i.e. there doesn't appear to be any long standing consensus
> on the matter. 

Consensus does not mean unanimity.  We can have rough consensus in the face
of a small number of dissenters.  When rough consensus exists, sometimes you
just have to move on.

> If we want to move on with the doc, perhaps removing the
> whole section off to another draft would be the way to go.

The consensus of the WG is that formal description of complex attributes
should occur within the scope of the RADIUS Extended Attributes document,
and that "traditional" RADIUS, as defined in RFC 2865 and the Guidelines BCP
should not be formally extended to embrace that concept.

We need to make progress on both the Guidelines BCP and the Extended
Attributes document, and continued debate over issues such as complex
attributes is blocking progress.  It's time to move on.  Please.



--
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/>