Re: FW: HTTP digest and RADIUS; new version of the Sterman draft

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

Greg Weber <gdweber@cisco.com> wrote:
> One advantage of formalizing sub-typed data might be to imposing
> or strongly encouraging that same structured framework on VSAs.  
> I'm fearful of heading towards lots of different VSA structures, 
> e.g. IS-835 has at least a couple different VSA-specific ways 
> of sub-typing data.

  Similarly for the 3gpp2 attributes.

  One of the reasons for writing standards in the IETF is so that
other people don't.  As we've seen in a number of cases, non-IETF
extensions to RADIUS involve *terrible* protocol design.

  I'm sure many people will agree that defining sub-types in RADIUS is
ugly.  But it's significantly less ugly than the choices made by
non-IETF groups.

  The single largest reason for defining sub-types is not to make our
life easier when writing new I-D's for RADIUS.  It's to give other
people a standard way of extending RADIUS, and thus to make our life
easier when we have to implement their modifications to the protocol.

  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/>