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


Hi Bernard,

> > 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.

That sounds like a reasonable scope to put on the bof.


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/>