RE: Subtypes

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

I don't disagree with you at all John.

But lets not get tangled up on philosophical points and political points.

Subtypes are not that bad....they don't really break anything, they do
create work if an intermediary had to add value by looking at some of the
subtypes.  And given that there are subtypes both in VSAs and lets see
parsing username to extract subtypes (ummmm data).  The code exists in
probably every RADIUS server made today to do this.  So its not a big
change.

Look at the Sterman draft.  Do you really think that an intermediary would
want to parse the guts of that attribute.

Look at PWLAN stuff.  And Prepaid.

My point is this, if there is a good argument to be made for a subtype not
to be a subtype then make it.

But banning them outright hmmmm that sounds .....

And exactly as you said, solid standards could mean having subtypes.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: john.loughney@nokia.com [mailto:john.loughney@nokia.com] 
> Sent: November 26, 2003 11:33 PM
> To: avi@bridgewatersystems.com; aboba@internaut.com; 
> jari.arkko@piuha.net
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Subtypes
> 
> 
> Hi Avi,
> 
> > 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)
> 
> As I understood, the sense of the room in Minneapolis was 
> that the IETF would have change control over the 
> specifications in RADext.  I assumed that to mean that folks 
> were OK with changes to many of the protocols, and that 
> getting a solid standard was the motivation for starting a WG.
> 
> John
> 

--
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/>