[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document
On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:
It comes down to what "tradional" means.
Traditional means what RFC 2865 *says*, exclusive of what various
people assume / assert it allows by virtue of what it fails explicitly
prohibit.
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...."?
Why would we want to limit the scope in *that* way? Legacy is close
to "historic" and I don't think that the IETF has consensus to dismiss
a class of RADIUS deployments as "legacy", "historic" or generally of
lesser relevance.
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.
You're parsing specific words in a single reply out of a very long
thread, as if they were court testimony or holy writ. I'm telling you
*why* the documents are broken down the way they are, as matter of WG
consensus.
What Alan means is that we need not be overly concerned about what the
BCP might inadvertently be construed to say about the usage of
Extended Attributes, because the Extended Attributes document will
provide its *own* usage guidelines for those attributes. Nothing more.
--
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/>