[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
- To: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, "Frank Quick" <fquick@qualcomm.com>
- Subject: RE: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
- From: "Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:32:42 -0500
- Cc: "Barney Wolff" <barney@databus.com>, <gwz@cisco.com>, "Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>, "Thomas Narten" <narten@us.ibm.com>, "W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>, "Carroll, Christopher P." <Ccarroll@ropesgray.com>, <gerry.flynn@verizonwireless.com>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Jari Arkko writes...
> But the note should not "punish the authors". Lets use less
> emotionally charged words, "violate" may not be very good. But
> "is not consistent" doesn't quite do the job for me either. Perhaps
> "not compliant with RFC XXXX" is the right, objective expression
> here.
I've certainly no desire, nor authority, to "punish" the draft authors.
Any reasonable language, that clearly and unambiguously indicates that
the disputed RADIUS usages are non-compliant with the base RADIUS RFC
and considered deprecated for any new work, would be fine with me.
Jari's suggested text works for me.
--
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/>