[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:

> Would it be reasonable for the IETF to make some determination that
> if RADIUSext proposes enough changes to RADIUS to require new
> implementations of RADIUSext protocols, that we should just throw
> in the towel and use Diameter?

So far, major protocol changes are not within scope of the RADEXT effort,
and I haven't heard a lot of objections to that.  The need seems to be for
some new attributes, a best current practice doc on prepaid, and some
transport clarifications.  There have been more substantial changes
proposed (changes to the dictionary, expansion in the attribute space,
standardization of failover, new commands, etc.) but so far no one has
stood up and said "I will implement this and have customers who will
deploy it if the IETF develops it."

That's somewhat understandable because RADIUS has been shipping for quite
a while and most vendors have worked around these issues in one way or the
other.  They may therefore have difficulty justifying a re-implementation
of functionality that has already been available to customers.

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/>