[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Consensus Call: "Sense of the Room" at RADEXT WG meeting at IETF 66
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 02:45:06PM -0700, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> In your reply to this message, please state whether you support the
> consensus described below, or whether you disagree with it (and if so, how).
>
> The "sense of the room" in the RADEXT WG meeting at IETF 66 was that:
>
> * Exhaustion of the RADIUS standard attribute space is a problem that
> should be solved.
Agreed.
> * RADEXT WG is the place to solve the problem.
Agreed.
> * The attribute exhaustion problem should be the focus -- not adding other
> capabilities to RADIUS (such as support for the Diameter data types).
Agreed, though my position is that the issue of data types exists on a
layer above the issue of separating and structuring A/V pairs. Further,
I think that we should include RFC2868-style tags in the "existing
capabilities of RADIUS".
> In reviewing the potential solutions to the problem, the people present at
> the meeting appeared to strongly favor a RADIUS extension approach such as
> that outlined by Lior & Li (RADIUS attribute extension), over the current
> proposals for adding Diameter AVP support to RADIUS (Wolff & Weber and
> Mitton proposals).
Agreed, however, the inner length field in the Lior proposal seems
redundant, and instead of using attribute 26, vendor 0, I think its
better to allocate a separate attribute, because I don't think the IETF
should create VSAs that don't follow the inner VSA format strongly
suggested in RFC 2865. Otherwise it's OK, but see also my previous mail
to this list (in the 'paradox' thread).
Cheers,
Emile.
--
E-Advies - Emile van Bergen emile@e-advies.nl
tel. +31 (0)78 6136282 http://www.e-advies.nl
--
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/>