Subject: Re: (radius) RFC2139: User-Name should be MUST

From: William "Chops" Westfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 99 14:33:38 PST

This seems very unlikely. The RADIUS WG was, in some respects, a
    strange entity: it was formed (originally) to document the existing
    protocol (and thus, to some extent, implementations).

Oh come on.  One of the major problems with the radius RFC is that it
only documents one (of the two) major vendors' implementations that were
in effect at the time the RFC was being written.  The other vendor
apprently did not opt to participate, but did have a major market share.
"Late comers" have been forced to choose to implement features from
that set, even when they directly conflict with the RFC.

I think one of the uunet folk accused us of "haggling over the price."
So what else is new?

BillW
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe ietf-radius' in the body of the message.

---

From: Paul Krumviede <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:56:14 -0800

> that set, even when they directly conflict with the RFC.

So if I change "protocol" with "protocols" you'll be happy? Is all I
was trying to say was that:

1) I doubt that the problems with RADIUS stemmed from its inability
to do what people wanted;

2) That to the extent that the WG was formed to document existing
practice, it is hard to produce an interoperable standard when
there exist multiple, possibly non-interoperable, implementations.

> I think one of the uunet folk accused us of "haggling over the price."

I do not, and never have had, any connection with Uunet, other than the
fact that in September my employer (MCI) completed a "merger" with
WorldCom, which also owns Uunet. Oh, at one point long ago my then
employer was a Uunet customer. So what is your point?

-paul
-