IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of draft-ietf-radext-status-server-05 (Part II)

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Thu, 25 February 2010 07:06 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E057C3A8352 for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:06:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.535, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qYWKHubbt81q for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:06:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62F33A82A8 for <radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>) id 1NkXn6-000C7r-KP for radiusext-data0@psg.com; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:05:44 +0000
Received: from [88.191.76.128] (helo=liberty.deployingradius.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <aland@deployingradius.com>) id 1NkXn4-000C6R-49 for radiusext@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:05:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4B862144.6050704@deployingradius.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:05:40 +0100
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ignacio Goyret <i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.com>
CC: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-radext-status-server-05 (Part II)
References: <BLU137-W6861B435730E1D4BA388293520@phx.gbl> <4B7AB10C.5030800@deployingradius.com> <201002242136.o1OLaSc0017148@cliff.eng.ascend.com> <4B85A2D5.2020906@deployingradius.com> <201002242229.o1OMTVqo019416@cliff.eng.ascend.com>
In-Reply-To: <201002242229.o1OMTVqo019416@cliff.eng.ascend.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <radiusext.ops.ietf.org>

Ignacio Goyret wrote:
> I'm just questioning the choice of MUST vs SHOULD.
> I've seen far too many specs that include MUSTs that should
> have been less restrictive.

  I agree.

> So, unless it hurts interoperability, I'd suggest replacing
> that MUST with a SHOULD, leaving the door open for servers
> to use other attributes, if their admins choose to do so.

  It won't hurt interoperability, so far as I can tell.

> Makes sense?

  Yes.

  I don't have strong opinions either way.

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status