RE: Some thoughts

["CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <paul.congdon@hp.com>]

Sorry for joining the conversation late, but was the original commenter
saying that we have all the attributes defined that we need, or just that
the size of the attribute field is large enough?   I can imagine several 802
specific attributes that are not consistent outside of vendor extensions.
It would be good if these were consistently defined (i.e. standardized).

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 11:16 AM
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Some thoughts
> 
> 
> Bernard Aboba writes..
> 
> > So far, I'm not clear about the link between "attribute 
> extension" and
> the
> > above goals.  Currently there are more than enough RADIUS attributes
> left
> > to handle the needs that have been described so far -- which would
> suggest
> > that attribute extension is not essential, and therefore is a
> candidate
> > for being removed from the charter.
> > 
> > Comments?
> 
> Acknowledging the existing RADIUS attributes in the IANA 
> registry (both approved by standards action and 
> "grandfathered") it does seem that attribute space 
> exhaustion, within the scope of currently proposed work, is 
> not imminent.  I would support removing this work from the charter.
> 
> -- Dave
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>
> 

--
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/>