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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of David B. Nelson
> Sent: 19 January 2010 17:08
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document
> 
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I think you misunderstood Alan's comment.  The WG arrived at 
> the consensus position that the BCP should address 
> "traditional" RADIUS only and that any guidelines for the 
> Extended Attribute format usage should be included in that 
> document.  This is a document modularity and separation of 
> concerns issue, not a statement about the correctness or 
> longevity of the BCP.

It comes down to what "tradional" means. Legacy is not too far off a
similar word, so what's wrong with saying "the recommendation of this
BCP are applicable in deployements that utilize legacy RADIUS
servers/clients...."?

BTW The original comment said "The IETF has a process where one document
can be marked as "updating" another", in the context of the BCP and
extended attributes drafts. That doesn't leave much room for
misinterpretation.

-Woj.


> 
> 
> --
> 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/>