Re: [radext] #32: Section 2.2

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>]

On Jun 21, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:

>  A single vendor still expects their equipment to be used in a wide
> variety of circumstances.  Experience shows that vendors who have
> significant sales can have their non-standard formats adopted by all
> major RADIUS servers.

Yes, but isn't that rather a corner case, in terms of the way the process is supposed to work?  I was addressing baseline expectations.

>  I think that the discussion about "not suitable for general use" is
> really "not suitable for standardization through the IETF".  As such,
> vendors and SDOs fall into the same non-IETF category.

If you were to change the text to say that, I'd agree.  But that's not what it says, and the definition of VSA in RFC 2865 is couched in terms of "not suitable for general use".

If what we want to say is that these guidelines really only apply for work done in the IETF, I think the document does convey that message.  My questions is whether that's really the message we want to convey.







--
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/>