Re: [radext] the future of RADEXT

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 8, 2022, at 1:59 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> As such, I believe that we should close the RADEXT WG and continue to
> redirect further RADIUS work to OPSAWG, including solutions for the
> Identifier problem if energy appears to work on them.

  I think that's reasonable.

> Please let me know (on list is fine) if you have concerns about this plan
> by 22 February 2022, along with any alternative proposals that might
> address those concerns.  However, in order to demonstrate that there is
> energy to keep the WG open and make progress on our remaining chartered
> item, I would need to see interest from multiple individuals in pursuing
> such a course of action, along with an estimate for when such work would
> ultimately be completed (that would function as a deadline for re-assessing
> the WG's progress and possibly closing the WG if insufficient progress is
> being made).

  I'm happy to work on RADIUS things.  It would be useful to standardize RFC 6613, 6614, and 7360.  Along with updating them for TLS 1.3, and adding things like Server Name Indicator.

  I suspect, however, that there is limited interest, even though such work would be useful.

> This is by no means a failure outcome; the WG has produced a lot of good
> work and we should be proud of what we have accomplished even as we look
> forward to what might be done in OPSAWG in the future.

  I agree.

  Alan DeKok.