Glenn Kowack wrote: ... >>> Does ‘traditional’ here mean as defined by the specification or is UDP >>> use optional? >> It means "as defined by the spec". Until now, UDP has been mandatory. > > I recommend you say that explicitly: as defined by the specification. It's > not > clear to me what 'traditional' means to random readers; they may view the > cited use of UDP as strictly historical. In any event, they probably won't > understand that 'traditional' means 'normative'.
OK. >> It is not intended to define TCP as a transport protocol for RADIUS in >> the absence of a secure transport layer. > > Although an improvement, your change does not provide the clarification > I believe is necessary. Stating a negative, and also citing 'intent' in "not > intended to define", is awkward and leaves room for speculation about the > positive case. Please see my prior example. OK, except that using RADIUS + TCP over IPSec would be allowed. It's too restrictive to specify TLS as the only permitted secure transport layer. > I think I should have been clearer that my question is about generally- > acceptable levels of failure for a mass-market network service. This sort > of data covers a broad area and should be publicly available. References would be helpful. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
