Re: On issue 6: Avi review of I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-design-13.txt

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

Avi Lior wrote:
> Section 1.3 ....
> 
>  While SDOs and vendors MAY choose to create specifications not
>    following these guidelines, this should be done only when those
>    specifications are intended for use in scenarios within a limited
>    scope of applicability.  Where general usage is possible, adhering to
>    these guidelines is RECOMMENDED.
> 
> Unless i am missing something  -- the above states that they dont have to be compatible.

  No, it does not.  The word "compatible" does not appear in that text.
 I have no idea what you mean by "compatible".  That word could mean
almost anything.

  Two SDOs may choose to ignore the guidelines, but may still both be
"compatible", or they may not be "compatible".  The document does not
distinguish between those two scenarios.

>>... the document asserts SDOs dont have to be compatible
>>       with other SDOs.

  The only usage of "compatible" in the document is via the word
"incompatible", as in:

	... different groups taking different approaches.
	These approaches are often incompatible, leading to
	additional complexity

  The document suggests that incompatibility is a problem to be avoided.
 You assert that the document says the exact opposite.

  I repeat my objection: No, it doesn't.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>