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

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

> Because according to you, a RADIUS server can be constructed that can encode and decode complex types without resorting to adding application layers and presumably even new code.  The paragraph is thus misleading and should be fixed or removed.

  That statement is simply not true under any objective definition of
reality.
(Avi) but Alan I am paraphresing your own statement and now you are saying that that is not what you said????  Take a look at the previous email (I can't paste it cause I am on a bb)



----- Original Message -----
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
To: Avi Lior
Cc: David B. Nelson <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>; radiusext@ops.ietf.org <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Sun Jan 17 05:54:42 2010
Subject: Re: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document

Avi Lior wrote:
> But you didnt answer the question.

  The question I answered was "why doesn't the section on complex types
have any text about application layers".  My response was direct and to
the point.  *That* point.

  So... you switched the topic to "but complex attributes require code
changes!"  And "But Alan is *denying* they require code changes!"

  It's damning evidence as to how weak your position is.

> In the next paragraph you state "one of the fundamental goals of RADIUS protocol design...."  First what is the purpose of that paragraph - it really makes no recommendations what so ever.

  It explains the rationale behind the recommendations.  And it's
clearly useless, just like most of my responses here.

> Also based on the specific comment in this email dont you think that paragraph is missing some of the information you offer in this email.

  Nope.

> Because according to you, a RADIUS server can be constructed that can encode and decode complex types without resorting to adding application layers and presumably even new code.  The paragraph is thus misleading and should be fixed or removed.

  That statement is simply not true under any objective definition of
reality.

  As before, I refer you to my earlier messages that discuss this exact
topic.

  Alan DeKok.