Re: Strawman RADIUSEXT WG charter - Take Three

[Richard Perlman <perl@lucent.com>]

Mark, Berrnard:

As a practical matter, server vendors have to update code regularly anyway
because of new VSA implementations.  I think the question here is really
whether we should simply accept new types, and possible reduce the pressure
on new VSAs (but, as Bernard has noted in another posting, increasing the
pressure on the "standard" attributes) or just stay with VSAs as a way of
accommodating the need for new types.

Personally, I'd vote to leave it as-is and stick with the well known, and
imperfect VSA route.

Richard

On 8/25/03 4:15 PM, "Bernard Aboba" <aboba@internaut.com> wrote:

>>> - No RADIUS "sub-types" will be defined.
>> 
>> I do not understand how introducing new sub-types or data types impacts
>> backwards compatibility anymore than permitting the addition of new
>> attributes.
> 
> Introducing new data types means that existing RADIUS servers would need
> to have their code updated -- the new attributes could not be supported
> merely by adding a dictionary entry.


--
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/>