RE: Issue: Data Type Advice

["Dave Nelson" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>]

Bernard Aboba writes...

> Therefore the "existing RADIUS data model as outlined below" is really
> just the data model for standard RADIUS attributes. 

Well, characterizing various ad-hoc extensions as part of a data model seems
to me to de-value the term "data model".  :-)

>   Does the data fit within the RADIUS standard attribute data model,
>   as outlined below?  If so, it MAY be encapsulated either in a [RFC2865]
>   format RADIUS attribute, or in a [RFC2865] format RADIUS VSA.

OK.

>   Does the data fit utilize ad-hoc extensions to the RADIUS data model,
>   as outlined in below?  If so, it SHOULD be encapsulated in a RADIUS VSA 
>   or an Extended Attribute [EXTENDED].

While it may be feasible to group the ad-hoc extensions into a handful of
categories, I'm not sure what benefit this provides.  Anything *other* than
the (limited) standard data model is automatically an ad-hoc extension,
right?  Do we need to provide examples?
 


--
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/>