RE: Subtypes (again) and other ideas

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

Victor Gamov writes...

> I red this pecifications and now I have new ideas about our problem.
> 
> 1. I think that we need to use VSA with Vendor-Id=0 (standard RADIUS)
to
> extend standard RADIUS attributes space.  It's very possible that
> current attribute space will be exceed in future.

DBN: I don't think there is any credible evidence that the Standard
RADIUS attribute space, for attributes that would pass "IETF standards
action" review, will be exhausted anytime in the near future.  If, in
fact, that does come to pass during the lifetime of RADIUS, then it
should be addressed at that point in time.  At this juncture, it is mere
speculation.

> 2. New attribute type from still unassigned attribute space with
> following format to extend Service-specific attributes:

DBN: "Service-Specific" as opposed to "Vendor-Specific"?  What
distinguishes a Service-Specific attribute from a RADIUS Standards Track
attribute?
 
> 3. When different applications need to share some attribute we can add
> it in RADIUS VSA (with Vendor-ID 0) attribute space after some
> discussions.  So item 1 is very useful for this.

DBN: When multiple applications have a shared need for a RADIUS
attribute, it belongs in the Standards Track attribute number space.



--
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/>