RE: Questions on RADIUS Extended attributes

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Nelson, David <> supposedly scribbled:

...

> 
> This solves two problems:
> 
> (1) Exhaustion of ID space.
> 
> (2) A standard method of encoding "over-size" attributes (those
> greater than 253 but less than the RADIUS PDU size). 

Didn't we already have that?

> 
> I think this meets the requirements we've agreed to for Extended
> Attributes. 

One problem it doesn't solve, though, is that of requiring code changes in servers & clients.  I'm still wondering why we think that 2 bytes are really needed for "Extended Type".  Also (just to note), the lack of a second Length field means that extended attributes can't be packed, unlike VSAs.

> 
> There are other issues that we have *not* yet agreed to, such as how
> to standardize structured data (grouping, sub-types, etc.). 

Grouping could be handled w/tags, a la RFC 2868.

> 
> While we agreed to solve one problem at a time, I note there are
> drafts waiting in the wings that need to take advantage of grouping
> features, or at least are currently designed to use them.  

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel

--
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/>