Re: [radext] Adoption call for draft-perez-radext-radius-fragmentation-06

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Sam,

Sorry for the delay. Inline..


On Sep 4, 2013, at 1:48 AM, Sam Hartman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>>>>> "Jouni" == Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>    Jouni> Folks,
> 
>    Jouni> We will take draft-perez-radext-radius-fragmentation-06 as
>    Jouni> the _basis_ for the WG solution
> 
> Hi.
> I'd be happy if you reword that sentence as "_a_ _basis_ for _a_ WG
> solution."

Pardon my non-native English.. 'a' is fine.

> 
> I think there was significant support for the idea that this draft alone
> is insufficient and that we want to revisit the RADIUS message size over
> TCP.
> I do not believe the discussion supports the idea that this draft will
> be a singular solution.
> So, I'd ask the chairs to clarify.

In the mail you quoted I also said:

"agrees with. whether we need further documents on fragmentation, e.g. as
a generic long term solution is to be seen and discussed."

which should be clear answer for what you ask above. We can revisit the
fragmentation topic if the current WG I-D does not fit in all use cases
and there can be further documents. Whether we would need to recharter
for more documents on fragmentation or whether just new milestones are
sufficient, I have not thought about yet.

- Jouni

> 
> --Sam