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

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Avi Lior wrote:
>>  Stop lying about what I said.
> 
> In an email long ago I  wrote:
>>>> Not the old RADIUS model but rather the one that we are all living
>>>> with today.  That model is not really different then Diameter.
> 
> This was your reply to the above:
> 
>  40% (or more) of current RADIUS deployments would disagree.

  i.e. 40% don't have "extended" capabilities.

  This is *not* the same thing as saying that the other 60% lack
"traditional" capabilities, and are therefore not addressed by the document.

  Take a logic course.

> On 19-01-2010, at 14:44 , Alan DeKok wrote:
> 
> Can you explain why you think I was lying???

  There are two ways to lie convincingly.  One is to tell the truth, and
make it sound like a lie.  Another is to tell *part* of the truth, and
make it sound like the *whole* truth.

  On Jan. 14, I sent a message containing the text:

---
  As I have said repeatedly, the document addresses the capabilities of
100% of the deployments.
---

  Which directly refutes your claim that I said the document applies to
only a subset of the deployments.

  However, if you really believe that the document does not address
*any* capabilities of 60% of RADIUS deployments, then this is great
news!  You have just defined those deployments as *not* implementing
RADIUS.  Your objections to a *RADIUS* BCP are therefore no longer
applicable, and can be summarily rejected.

  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/>