Re: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document

[Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>]

I agree with Woj.

Regards,

Behcet



----- Original Message ----
> From: Wojciech Dec (wdec) <wdec@cisco.com>
> To: Dave Nelson <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 4:02:17 AM
> Subject: RE: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> > [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Nelson
> > Sent: 10 January 2010 15:37
> > To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hey guys, the purpose of this "Last Look" call is to review 
> > small changes proposed to fix a couple of late-discovered 
> > technical issues.  We have been through WG Last Call, IETF 
> > Last Call and IESG approval on this document.
> > 
> > We are all aware that the RADIUS data defined in RFC 2865 (and a few
> > thereafter) is limited -- some would say very limiting.  
> > After a long, long, long time the RADEXT WG reached rough 
> > consensus that the Best Current Practice for designing 
> > "traditional" RADIUS Attributes stays within the boundaries 
> > of the original RADIUS data model, and acknowledges the value 
> > of data-dictionary driven RADIUS servers.  Any expansion of 
> > the RADIUS data model is to happen in the RADIUS Extended 
> > Attributes document (which is not making good forward 
> > progress, by the way).
> > 
> > In short, the "Last Look" is not an opportunity to upset 
> > long-standing consensus, even though there are also long 
> > standing dissenters.  Let's look for technical nits in the 
> > document and move on, please.  Thank you.
> 
> With all due respect, but  this isn't terribly helpful. Based on this
> and previous heated threads, it's my impression that the topic of
> complex attributes and how they're described/dealt with in the "Design
> Guidleines" document has been and clearly continues to be a bone of
> contention, i.e. there doesn't appear to be any long standing consensus
> on the matter. If we want to move on with the doc, perhaps removing the
> whole section off to another draft would be the way to go. 
> 
> -Woj.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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: 
> > 
> 
> --
> 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: 





--
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/>