Re: Strawman RADIUSEXT WG charter

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> 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?

That's reasonable.

> > 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.

OK.

> > 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 13.1.5.2 of their event messaging spec:
>   http://www.packetcable.com/downloads/specs/PKT-SP-EM-I07-030815.pdf
>
> 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
deployed application.


--
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/>