RE: Issue: Attribute concatenation/splitting

["Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Barney,

I understand what your objections.  You are trying to solve the problem
in general.  Nothing wrong with that.

But as a specific solution to a specific problem what I propose will
work. No? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barney Wolff [mailto:barney@databus.com] 
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 9:48 PM
> To: Avi Lior
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Issue: Attribute concatenation/splitting
> 
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 08:33:07PM -0400, Avi Lior wrote:
> > I think we should not allow to pack more then one Filter Rule in a 
> > single attribute.
> > 
> > A Filter Rule should be allowed to overflow (span) more then one 
> > attribute.
> > 
> > If you have more then one filter rules in a packet with some filter 
> > rules overflowing, how can you tell when a new one begins?
> > 
> > A filter rule always starts with an action: permit or deny.  These 
> > words do not appear anywhere else in the rule.  Therefore a Filter 
> > Atribute that starts with a permit or deny must be a new 
> filter rule.
> > 
> > What is wrong with that?
> 
> It's a layer violation.
> 
> What will be suggested when the next new attribute runs into 
> the same problem?  Another technique that depends on the 
> syntax of the particular attribute?
> 
> IMHO, Feh!
> 
> Regards,
> Barney
> 
> -- 
> Barney Wolff         I never met a computer I didn't like.
> 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>