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

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

I absolutely agree. 

Historically, specifically around this document  -- consensus has not been a working group priority.

On 12-01-2010, at 07:41 , Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
>> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of David B. Nelson
>> Sent: 11 January 2010 21:21
>> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: "Last Look" at the RADIUS Design Guidelines document
>> 
>> On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Avi Lior wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> Woj> Sorry to hark on, but in terms of "consensus" and not re-opening
> closed discussions, judging by the number of folks who have raised the
> issue, it would be better to say that there no longer is consensus, with
> even a rough consensus being questionable. Sometimes one needs to be
> able take a step back inorder to move forward.
> 
> -Woj.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> The purpose of the RADIUS Extended Attributes document is to 
>> address the shortcomings of the "traditional" RADIUS data 
>> model that we are all very familiar with.  Or at least to 
>> partially address those shortcomings.  The WG consensus on 
>> that does stop short of creating full feature-parity with Diameter.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 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/>
>> 
> 
> --
> 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/>


--
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/>