Re: On issue 6: Avi review of I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-design-13.txt

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Avi Lior wrote:
> In the context of this document and in the context of the specific section I was commenting on --  i think it is darn clear what we mean by compatible or incompatible.

  Given the level of miscommunication, I don't want to make assumptions
about anything.

> No i don't assert the opposite.  I am saying the document allows for SDOs to create incompatible specifications.

  I see no ethical or procedural way for the document to forbid that
practice.

>  To repeat what I said with appropriate words highlighted:  "the document asserts SDOs DONT HAVE TO BE COMPATIBLE." 

  Again, no.  I really can't agree with that statement.

> back to the original issue - that is issue 6:
> 
> Issue 6: Section 3.2
> 
> " These approaches are often incompatible, leading to
>   additional complexity in RADIUS implementations."
> 
> Just say "These approaches often lead to additional complexity in RADIUS implementations."
> 
> I dont see the need to bring incompatibility statement into this paragraph.

  Because it directly contradicts your assertion that the document
states "SDOs don't have to be compatible".

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>