RE: Potential work items

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Just to be clear...In the subtype discussions that I was involved with and
in the current I-Ds that use them, Nobody requires changes to the
Dictionary.

Nobody is introducing a new type.

I really don't see what the all the fuss is about.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:47 PM
> To: Mike Bean; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Potential work items 
> 
> 
> Mike Bean writes...
> 
> > We have code in our RADIUS server that parses many 
> structured RADIUS 
> > attribute types, some RFC, most VSA.
> 
> VSAs are fine... for what VSAs were intended for.  I have 
> worked on RADIUS Servers that parsed VSAs, too.  
> 
> > I understand that this group does not want to add new 
> attribute types
> to
> > the RADIUS standard; however, since 3GPP2 standards have 
> been adopted
> and
> > require RADIUS support for sub-type values, it may be 
> helpful to write
> an
> > informational RFC that describes the use of sub-types in a RADIUS 
> > attribute.
> 
> IMHO, it is unfortunate if 3GPP2 has standardized use of 
> RADIUS attributes that substantially "bend" the well-accepted 
> RADIUS architecture.  Having done so, the debate is over how 
> to "promote" these VSAs into some form of standards or 
> multi-vendor status.  Like it or not, the standard RADIUS 
> attribute space is "flat".
> 
> > Perhaps IS-835 and IS-878 can be changed to flatten these sub-type 
> > attributes into separate attributes.
> 
> That would probably be my preference, but I haven't seen the 
> documents you reference.
> 
> > My concern is it may be too late...
> 
> Too late because the implementers have shipped product and 
> don't want to go back and re-implement, in an effort to move 
> into an IETF standards-based arena?  I've heard the argument 
> that the closure of the IETF RADIUS WG created an "open 
> season" for other SDOs to revise the RADIUS architecture, but 
> I just don't buy it.
> 
> > ...providing additional information on how sub-type attributes are
> used
> > can only help developers.
> 
> Help developers to continue to "make the same mistakes"?  
> Sorry for what might be perceived as a cheap shot, but IMHO 
> use of sub-types in non-VSA attributes is a mistake. 
> 
> > I suspect most vendors supporting 3GPP2 in their
> > RADIUS server have already written code to support at least the
> display of
> > sub-type attributes.  My two cents.
> 
> I suppose you are correct.  Is this a case of the de-facto 
> standard forcing the hand of the de-jure standard development?
> 
> Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.  I don't know 
> how this will come out, but having more concrete data helps.
> 
> -- 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/>
> 

--
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/>