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

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

On 19-01-2010, at 08:59 , Alan DeKok wrote:

> Dave Nelson wrote:
>>>  The document would cease to be a RADIUS BCP.  It would become an SDO
>>> BCP, and would describe practices that are SDO specific.
>>> 
>>>  If you want such a document, go write it in an SDO.
>> 
>> I'm not sure that's the best possible advice, either.  The "preferred future
>> state" is a more unified RADIUS data model, not a more fragment one.
> 
>  I agree that's the preferred future state.  But the "extended
> attributes" document which defines IETF RADIUS complex types isn't finished.
> 
>  The guidelines document can therefore discuss nothing more than the
> current state of RADIUS: basic data types, and "ad hoc" complex types
> (RFC 4679, 5090, etc.)
The current state of RADIUS is not the legacy state that the BCP seems to be about either. As you pointed out - it applies to 40% of the market.  Lets me totally clear what this BCP is for....

> 
>  I have no objection to adding complex types in this WG.  But it hasn't
> happened yet, and the "guidelines" document isn't the place to define them.
> 
>  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/>


--
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/>