Re: [radext] Proposed new charter text

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 22, 2015, at 3:35 PM, Peter Deacon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> While I generally support approach and associated draft draft-dekok-radext-coa-proxy-00.txt have some concerns and would prefer to keep some prescriptive details out of the charter.

  The only practical way to do CoA proxying is via Operator-Name.  Which is why it’s mentioned.  The use of an opaque NAS identifier was done at the specific request of the WG.  So I believe there is WG consensus for the approach taken.  The draft has been available for some time now.  The idea has been presented at meetings going back 3-4 years, IIRC.  The only discussion of this topic has been supportive of this approach taken here.

  What exactly is the benefit of making the charter more vague?  You have “some concerns”.   Well.. I would appreciate discussing those concerns openly, instead of changing the charter to address unspecified issues.

  Will the approach recommended here

a) not work?

b) not be applicable to some situations?

c) cause problems?

  As we’ve also seen, documents can be updated to reflect issues not known at the time the charter was written.  e.g. the extended attributes document was worked on for years, and then tossed and re-written from scratch.  I think any concerns you may have can be addressed in the document review, instead of via charter modifications.

  Alan DeKok.