Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
do you have actual statistics to back that up?
It's not meant to be an exact number, but it's pretty close to being
correct, in my experience.
there are better (more reliable, more secure, more effective,
cheaper) ways of providing a set of functions at a user terminal
than to give everyone user-programmable machines and then have the
network insist that they all have a rigidly controlled
configuration...
Yes. And there are mistakes in IETF protocols that have been
deployed for decades, too. What are we supposed to tell the people
who have billions of dollars invested in their current systems? "You
got it wrong, we're not going to come up with a solution to your
problems." ?
to me it seems to presuppose much more than that, by naming the kinds of
actors and their roles.
The actors and roles are nothing new. End-hosts, authentication
servers, administrators, etc. have all been around for years. The NEA
names are new, because people are starting to realize that there are
classes of behavior that cannot be adequately described using the
existing names.
Alan DeKok.
--
http://deployingradius.com - The web site of the book
http://deployingradius.com/blog/ - The blog
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf