[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document
The AD is unhappy with all discussions that are inefficient and
sometimes are taking personal tones.
I am making again an appeal to all the participants in the discussion to
focus on the professional aspects of the debate and to abstain from
remarks that can be interpreted as personal.
I am also reminding the proposal that I have made a week ago. Can you
get together (maybe the two of you - Alan and Avi) and create text to be
added to the current document about what this BCP covers, and what it
does not cover and may be in the scope of future work? Get WG consensus
on this text, have this BCP approved, and recharter the Working Group to
work on what is not covered by the BCP like adding complex types.
Thanks and Regards,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avi Lior [mailto:avi@bridgewatersystems.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:53 AM
> To: Alan DeKok; David Nelson; Bernard Aboba; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org; Glen Zorn
> Subject: Re: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document
>
> The tone of your responses is what I find offensive....
>
> 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.
>
> We have seen this type of shameless self promoting from you
> before: one just needs to look at the section 2.1.2 of
> RFC5080 with its shameless taunting of what a wonderful job
> FreeRadius did. NOT really actually ... a pretty obvious
> non-novel solution. Such text has no place in an RFC.
>
> I am trying to keep this professional and not personal. You
> persist with personal, patronizing attacks on me and my
> comments...but if you want to continue down the lines of
> personal attacks and the chairs and AD are obviously happy
> with this...then I have better things to do.
>
> 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.
>
> And to Bernard, and David act like chairs.
>
> And to Dan, Bernard, David and Alan....I take you to the BAD
> email discussion with Glen. This is a caustic WG...Great job guys.
>
>
> On 22-01-2010, at 15:29 , Alan DeKok wrote:
>
> > Avi Lior wrote:
> >> Can we start with this then...
> >
> > I see your false dichotomy and raise you one:
> >
> > Is the purpose of your post to be intentionally offensive,
> or did you
> > simply not see the dozens of posts explaining the 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/>