RE: Subtypes

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

> like this:
> > 
> >         Operator-name=GSM:T-Mobile, location-ID=44,location-
> >         name=starbucks-4,location-type=coffee shop, city= seattle,
> >         state=Washington,country=us

 
> String-valued attributes containing a single, well-defined 
> entity, such as a Fully-Qualified Domain Name or an X.500 
> Distinguished Name, would seem to be perfectly appropriate.


> However, attempting to create new "entities" in an effort to 
> encode sub-types in an ASCII-delimited, implicit-length 
> protocol encoding, would be a Very Bad Thing (tm), IMHO.

Your argument which relies on the premise that something that is well
defined is okay to be encoded as a subtype vs something that is not well
defined is not okay is problematic to me. Why, because whether something is
well defined or not is hugely debateable.

The authors of the above can argue that the example is a well defined
entity.
I will argue that my Prepaid attribute is a well defined entity and in fact
it is.

I would rather see a test that considers the following:
A) Are subcomponents of the attribute useful to intermediaries;
B) Should subcomponent be "promoted" because they are useful.
C) If a RADIUS server needs to parse the attributes, does it make sense to
encode them using subTLVs.
There could be other "tests" or guidelines.

If I wanted to be pendantic about the feedback I am getting on this list;
your X.500 MUST be encoded using separate attributes.

Using my test we can decide what the best action to take on an attribute by
attribute basis.


--
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/>