Re: subtypes

[Victor Gamov <vit@lipetsk.ru>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > 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
>
>
> It's hard to see how VSAs can address the length issue since
> all RADIUS attributes are defined in RFC 2865 to have a Length field of 8
> bits.
>
> However, this approach could allow for grouping and possibly attribute
> extension since RFC 2865 does allow for grouping of attributes within a
> VSA.
>
> Some questions:
>
> a) Would single-level grouping (e.g. no groups within groups) within a
> VSA with vendorid = 0 address the issues?  Or do we need new data types or
> even complex data types (with a datatype definition language)?
>
> b) Since VSAs are ignorable by the RADIUS client, are all contemplated
> "grouped" attributes optional?  How do we distinguish between mandatory
> and optional attributes?

I think that we must use new attribute with format like VSA (26) and 
with special behavior for attribute asseble/disassemble.


--
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/>