Re: Potential work items

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

wolfgang.beck01@t-online.de (Wolfgang Beck) wrote:
> > b. Don't require changes to the RADIUS dictionary (e.g. no sub-types).
> This is ugly. I expect that 20 - 40 attributes are to be expected (extensions
> to RfC 2595 are constantly added). As this data doesn't need to be
> interpreted by the RADIUS server, I don't see a reason why
> sub-attributes are bad here.

  If the data isn't interpreted by the RADIUS server, then it may be
packed into a list of one attribute, like EAP-Message.

  i.e. using RADIUS to transport opaque data for "foo" should be
solved by creating a "packed-foo-message" attribute, and not a RADIUS
attribute for every field in "foo".

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>