RE: Subtypes

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

Avi Writes...

> Not withstanding those examples.  The sterman draft which is already
> deployed uses subtypes are we going to force it to change?  (See 2.2
> Digest-Attributes attribute)

I thought the whole idea of having a WG to standardize extensions was to
avoid the sort of thing that happens when individuals, companies or
other SDOs, publish Informational RFCs that don't under go an
appropriate level of Internet community review and don't maintain
reasonable architectural consistency with the base protocol they are
attempting to extend.  IMHO, sub-types is an example of the type of
problem that is desirable to avoid.

The fact that someone has implemented an Internet Draft is not a good
reason to exempt the implemented features thereof from IETF "change
control" during the WG process.

We should be seeking the minimal-impact extensions that get the job
done.  So far, I have not heard compelling logic that says the existing
mechanisms in RADIUS and/or Diameter are insufficient to accomplish the
needed functionality.  Unless we have demonstrably exhausted the
existing attribute space, and given that grouping mechanisms exist, why
are sub-types *needed* (as opposed to *wanted*)?

Regards,

Dave

David B. Nelson
Wireless & AAA Architect, Office of the CTO
Enterasys Networks, Inc.
50 Minuteman Road
Andover, MA 01810-1008
(978) 684-1330
dnelson@enterasys.com



--
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/>