Re: [radext] the future of RADEXT

[[e-mail]]

Hi Ben, all,

> 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.

OPSAWG is a special WG in the sense that it has different interest communities that rarely cross-review work. I'm not sure if RADIUS community is represented there. 

The experience I had when trying to progress some RADIUS extensions in opsawg is that, except Alan, we got no other feedback. My feeling is that will be difficult to "maintain" the protocol in OPSAWG. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : radext <[e-mail]> De la part de Benjamin Kaduk
> Envoyé : mardi 8 février 2022 19:59
> À : [e-mail]
> Objet : [radext] the future of RADEXT
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> The RADEXT list has seen only minimal activity since the publication of
> RFC
> 8559 in 2019, with those few topics that do come in mostly getting
> redirected to OPSAWG as a more useful venue for making progress.
> 
> I confess I have been a bit negligent in letting the group linger in
> this state for so long and not putting more energy into it.  That said,
> the facts on the ground remain that we don't have any active drafts and
> there does not seem to be much energy remaining to discuss the proposals
> for how to resolve the limited 8-bit size of the RADIUS datagram's
> Identifier field.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.