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

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

On 11-01-2010, at 15:21 , David B. Nelson wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Avi Lior wrote:
> 
>> If you want to make progress then do something about the complex  
> attributes
>> and other areas that are problematic.
> 
> That's not for me to say.  We require WG consensus to do that, and the  
> consensus we have is to defer such issues to the RADIUS Extended  
> Attributes document and leave "traditional" RADIUS pretty much alone.
I didnt mean do something as in address them.  I mean do something as in address the issues that are being raised.

> 
>> It seems from the remark you are making you a suggesting that we stop
>> complaining about these complex attributes and other things.
> 
> I *am* suggesting that you (and others) channel that energy into a  
> vehicle that currently has WG consensus to address such issues, namely  
> the RADIUS Extended Attributes document.
Well, remove the offending text in the guideline.

> 
>> People like myself are tired of bringing up issues on this document  
> over
>> and over again and have them being ignored.
> 
> I understand, but at some point you may want to consider simply  
> accepting the WG consensus on this and to find another way to address  
> your issues.  Attempting to re-open closed discussions isn't productive
I am assuming that the chair(s) put the " Last Look " for some reason.  Anyway please look back in the threads on this document and you will see sustained issues with this text.  

> 
>> I can just ignore this document at the IETF but the problem is that  
> it will
>> haunt me at the SDO level.
> 
> I'm certainly not suggesting that you (or anyone) ignore the document.
Not ignore "...but channel that energy elsewhere".  Same difference no?

>> Several people told me that no one will take this document seriously
>> and that I should let it go.
> 
> Well, those who give you that advice would appear to me to not take  
> the standard process seriously.
Good. So I am taking the process seriously and i am seriously wanting to fix these issues.

> 
>> What is the purpose of this document?
> 
> The purpose is to document the Internet community's assessment of the  
> Best Current Practice for designing RADIUS Attributes for the  
> "traditional" RADIUS protocol, as defined in RFC 2865.

So complex types are not part of that model so why are we even talking about them.
Nobody is suggesting that we add new types to the traditional model.  So please delete the text - or get it right.

You can talk about the perils of complex types it the document that actually talks about complex types.  That document can have the guidelines of when it would be appropriate to have complex type and how to achieve the use of complex types.



--
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/>