[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Strawman RADIUSEXT WG charter
> Given there is a claim of usefulness and apparently some uncertainty,
> is it desirable to preclude this work in the charter itself, as opposed
> to simply not having a current work item for the attribute space until
> need can possibly be demonstrated?
> > Are they useful for newer applications as well as legacy ones?
> I'm not sure I can answer that right now, but my main point
> was that I don't think we want to preclude describing something
> that we've defined and allocated in RFC 3575. I'm fine with the
> language in your subsequent strawmen.
> > Can you describe the issues that came up in the PacketCable
> > 1.0 spec?
> Some of the attributes needed to support lawful intercept for
> voice exceeded the maximum length for VSAs. The PacketCable
> spec defines a scheme for fragmenting data across VSAs in
> section 18.104.22.168 of their event messaging spec:
> RFC 2865 already offers SHOULD advice on the VSA attribute
> encoding. I think it would be helpful to offer some guidance
> on long VSA attributes, so we don't end up with a profusion of
> incompatible techniques like PacketCable's.
That seems reasonable, particularly since this issue has come up in a
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.