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

["Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <wdec@cisco.com>]

> 
>   Multiple people supporting the guidelines document have 

Who would that be?

> agreed that complex attributes belong in the "extended 
> attributes" document.  Use
> *that* to defend the push for complex attributes.

Having a BCP document which states "don't do it", along with some
dubious arguments (eg security) really doesn't help.

> 
> > Even after such design, one will have a BCP that says one thing and 
> > another doc something else. This will be confusing to 
> anyone trying to 
> > make sense of it.
> 
>   You're putting a pretty low bar on the intelligence of 
> anyone reading the RFCs.  The IETF has a process where one 
> document can be marked as "updating" another.  WG progress 
> shouldn't stop because one person is confused about how that works.

Given that an update to the BCP is planned before it's even been
published makes one wonder as to whether it's good to have it published
in its current form. Which this thread is all about.

-Woj.

> 
>   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/>