[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The RADIUS attribute space: an assessment
Glen Zorn writes...
> > Why would that be a better idea? Except, perhaps, on some
> > self-congratulatory level?
> Thanks for the insult.
No insult intended. My point is that an attempt by the IESG to suppress
RADIUS extensions work will ultimately fail, and serve only an
ivory-tower "Diameter wins, RADIUS loses" sort of objective.
> It's not at all clear to me that Diameter (as specified) is actually a
> "better" protocol but at least it doesn't have the problem Bernard
> mentions; in any case, we're not talking about killing RADIUS, here,
> whether to take heroic measures to keep it alive.
Well, yes. But you have authored several I-Ds that once could
characterize as "heroic measures" to extend RADIUS and you told us
during IETF-65 you were working on a method to extend the RADIUS PDU
limit beyond 4095. But perhaps you've changed your opinion, as all of
us are wont to do from time to time.
> That would be near-suicidal for interoperability, of course. Oh wait,
> that might mean that RADIUS would go away...no wonder there is no
If the likely disastrous outcome of poor interoperability would actually
prevent such further work, you might have a good point. I suspect that
it would not, and what we would end up with would be different,
non-interoperable "dialects" of RADIUS promulgated by various SDOs, and
possibly by vendors as well.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.