Re: subtypes (was: HTTP digest and RADIUS; new version of the Sterman draft)

[Victor Gamov <vit@lipetsk.ru>]

john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:

> This is exactly why we need to ensure interoperability.  If we extend RADIUS in
> ways which would require RADIUS servers to be recoded, what is gained?  I think
> that if Extension X provides the exact same functionality as VSA y, what is 
> the need to support Extension X?  At in the GSMA, 3GPP, 3GPP2 and enterprise
> sphere, many vendors are implementing VSAs - even VSAs not specified by
> themselves.  I know in the enterprise sphere, vendors implement VSAs which 
> are specified by competitors all of the time.

I think that we must propose extensions for some service-specific areas 
to vendors may implemet it in their products.   So, SIP or WiFi specific 
attributes must be equal for all products from all vendors.

And because we have VSA and VendorId=0 treat as standard RADIUS we can 
use this to extend attribute space.  But current VSA has only 255 byte 
length attribute value. But new services require large attribute value 
sometimes.

So, we can propose new extension with new attribute where we can join 
large attribute values or propose new RADIUS behaviour for VSA with 
VendorId=0

IMHO


--
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/>