|
The changes made in -12 largely relate to the organizational issues brought up by Hannes. Therefore it would appear that Issue 327 remains open, and possibly some of the concerns expressed by Avi and others relating to Issue 325. As a result, it would appear that there is still WG consensus against publication of the document. > Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:57:25 +0200 > From: aland@deployingradius.com > To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org > Subject: (repost) Reminder for review of Design Guidelines document > > We've had one review so far. More would be better. > > The guidelines document was updated significantly to address the open > concerns. The latest revision is available at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-12 > > The high-level differences are an update as per the review from > Hannes. The outline is now: > > introduction (2 pages) > guidelines (3 pages) > rationale (11 pages) > > The "guidelines" section gives the guidelines with no supporting > arguments. All of the arguments are in the "rationale" section. We > hope that this organization makes the guidelines easier to understand. > > The document still needs some minor editing, and also should integrate > comments from Issue #327. However, these changes are expected to be > minor, and we are looking for feedback on the current draft. > > A diff is at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-radext-design-12.txt > > The diff isn't that useful, as too much has changed. > > 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/> |