Re: Pre-work item review

[Greg Weber <[e-mail]>]

> > RADIUS MIB Revision
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2618bis-00.txt
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2619bis-00.txt
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2620bis-00.txt
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nelson-rfc2621bis-00.txt
> > RFC 3576 MIBs
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-decnodder-radext-dynauth-client-mib-03.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-decnodder-radext-dynauth-server-mib-03.txt

Yes to all the MIBs.

> > RADIUS Extensions for IEEE 802
> >
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-congdon-radext-ieee802-03.txt

I support the ideas here, but it's unclear if the current
draft is compliant with the 'backward compatibility' 
bullet in the charter.  The current text adds data types
to RADIUS for 'extended' attributes (e.g. UInt64??).  
One of the co-authors mentioned in MSP that they're moving 
away from 'extended attributes', but it's kinda hard to 
see if it's compliant with our charter based on 'planned' 
changes to the draft.

Greg

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>