Subject: [Isms] Proposal for progression of VACM/RADIUS ID

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 17:59:32 -0400

Trying to come up with a way to move the VACM/RADIUS draft forward, we
obviously had a difficult time determining what and how many counters
and notifications should be included in the specification.  As Juergen
pointed out, I've not been an active participant in the technical
discussions and don't have any particular positions to support or
oppose - my objective here is to identify how we should proceed
forward with the VACM/RADIUS document.

My approach to this has been to carefully read all of the related mail
on the list (actually a couple of readings) so I could come up a
reasoned way for us to move forward.  Based on these readings, a few
things of note related to counters/notifications stuck out to me:

- No one made any strong arguments that any of these were important or
  even necessary for operators to deploy and run VACM/RADIUS managed
  systems.  In fact, there were statements to the effect that the
  operational need wasn't clear and that the cost of implementation
  might not be worth the utility;

- There was not agreement as to the implementationa and operational
  cost of the counters/notifications but all seemed to agree that
  having counters/notifications would cost more than not having them;

- At the end of the email chain, proponents for various
  counters/notifications said that they could live without them;

- If we do incorporate some of the suggested counters/notifications,
  working through the necessary details and corner cases _might_
  require some VACM changes.  If this proves to be the case, it
  is outside of our current charter and (I believe) would
  significantly slow the progression of the document.

Based on the above factors, my suggestion to the WG is that we not
incorporate any of the counters/notifications that were discussed in
mid-March and that we initiate a WG Last Call on 'Extensions to the
View-based Access Control Model for use with RADIUS
draft-ietf-isms-radius-vacm-05.txt' in short length of time (say about
a week).

Comments and suggestions are, of course, welcome.

Russ

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 10:52:35 -0400

Hi,

If you do this, please make sure the shepherding document reflects
that this was discussed and WG consensus was to not include the
counters. That could save you time when it goes through IESG review.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 6:00 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Isms] Proposal for progression of VACM/RADIUS ID
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isms mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 23:44:48 -0400

Hi Dave,

Good suggestion, will do.

Russ