RE: Some thoughts

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Paul Congdon writes...

> 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?

[DBN] I was suggesting that the 8-bit attribute number space would seem
to still be sufficient given the scope of proposed work, and that
EAP-Message style application level fragmentation and re-assembly seems
like it might be sufficient to cover any need for attributes longer than
the current maximum attribute length.

Or at least I haven't yet seen any compelling counter examples, based on
currently deployed or defined usages.

-- 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/>