[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document
Avi Lior wrote:
> The tone of your responses is what I find offensive....
Describing competing products as "legacy" wasn't meant as a put-down,
of course. Describing people as "shameless" wasn't negative, either.
> No Alan, the purpose of all my post it to get the document to be the best possible document. One would start wondering what is the purpose of your posts...is it to protect your implementation, you beloved FreeRadius...hmmmmm I think it is.
You mean that I'm the first vendor in the history of the IETF who is
trying to influence the standards process? I'm glad I made history.
> If I were the only one that is raising these issues I would just walk away. But I am NOT the only one. So stop the personal attacks on my criticism of this body of work.
Your messages have consistently denigrated other peoples products and
their reasons for recommending simplicity in engineering design.
This is *despite* the clear agreement of me and others that the RADIUS
model should be updated to meet your needs.
If you want to keep this on a technical level, the only disagreement
we have is whether or not the updated model is described in this
document or in another one.
Since the WG already has a document that extends RADIUS, I don't see
why that text should be in a BCP. Just update the extension document,
and let the BCP move forward.
Merging the two documents into one would require a charter update, as
both have charter milestones. If you really want that to happen, stop
trying to "fix" the BCP, and propose instead that the WG be
re-chartered. If you don't want to merge the two documents, then you
cannot have any objections to the BCP, as all of your concerns are
addressed in the extensions document.
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/>