RE: Subtypes

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

Avi Lior writes...

> Which approach?
> The approach of forcing an X.500 to be encoded using separate
attributes.
> Or the set of tests I defined above?

The former.

> Actually I will make a stronger statement: there is no distinction
between
> the two.  

I respectfully disagree.

> One man's garbage is another man's treasure;

Well that's true, and I guess I tend to fall more in the camp of
considering multiple, ASCII-delimited, implicit-length, sub-type fields
in a single attribute as "garbage".  Sorry.

> But what is wrong with justifying existing implmentation for the sake
of
> convience to early adopters.  That should also be taken into account.
no?
> If the attribute as been in wide use and there is no good reason to
change
> it then lets not.  Doesn't that make common sense.

All else being equal, yes, it would make sense.  However, in this case,
I don't see all else actually being equal.  I see a serious protocol
design quality issue.

-- Dave


--
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/>