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

["Dave Nelson" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>]

Avi Lior writes...

> In essence the document is talking about how bad Complex Types are.

"Bad" is a loaded, pejorative word.  The document doesn't use it.  The
document explains why complex types are inappropriate, in most cases, for
use in "traditional" RADIUS attributes.  The logic is sound, even if you
personally reject it.
 
> The reality is that every SDO uses them and will continue to use
> them - because they solve real world problems.

Well, I suspect that many of these non-IETF SDOs that undertake such usage
do so largely because of your efforts.  You are not bound by IETF consensus
any more than the rest of us.  However, I personally find the extent to
which you have used your participation in other SDOs as a platform to
undermine the IETF work a bit disappointing.

> Fix this document.

The document is not broken.  The IETF consensus position is that complex
types and other "advanced" RADIUS features belong in the RADIUS Extended
Attribute format and not in the "traditional" attribute format.  That's not
an unreasonable position, as it protects the interests of both legacy and
advanced RADIUS servers.



--
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/>