Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf