RE: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-radext-design

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

Dave Nelson [mailto:d.b.nelson@comcast.net] writes:

...
 
> This document should aim to bring order out of chaos.
> 
> I think it would be fine if the Extended Attributes have 16-bit IDs and
> the
> traditional RFC 2865 format VSAs kept their 8-bit IDs.  Anything else,
> e.g.
> non-standard VSA formats, is simply "off the reservation" and outside
> the
> scope of this document.

The problem is that, first of all, there is no "standard VSA format: the
format given in RFC 2865 is recommended, not required.  Next, the format
recommended was widely and immediately recognized (except, perhaps, by the
guardians of orthodoxy in the IETF) as being woefully inadequate and
therefore ignored by many large vendors.  Last, and perhaps most important,
the scope of this document is not (or shouldn't be, IMHO), the preservation
of past mistakes but the prevention of future ones.  If it is too
uncomfortable to admit & fix the VSA fiasco in a BCP, then the WG needs to
adopt as a work item a standards-track draft that updates section 5.26 of
RFC 2865.  In any case, we need to pull our collective head out of the sand.


--
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/>