RE: Proposed resolution to guidelines document

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

Alan DeKok writes...

> The document no longer relies on traditional RADIUS dictionaries
> to motivate its recommendations.  It no longer discusses *any* 
> processing model of RADIUS, other than to say that systems other
> than RADIUS may use the data produced by RADIUS.
> 
>   All it says is "prefer simple types to complex ones, but allow
> complex ones if everything else is worse".  And it says that change
> has risk.
> 
>   If this text is deemed to be not applicable to the majority of
> "RADIUS" implementations, then I suggest that those systems are no
> longer implementing RADIUS.

My concern with this solution is that it's more than an editorial revision,
and potentially overturns some elements of RADEXT WG, IETF and IESG
consensus.  If we are to consider changing the the document in such a way,
can this *really* be handled as an RFC Editor Note?



--
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/>