RE: draft-jones-radius-geopriv

[Tschofenig Hannes <hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com>]

hi john, 

thanks for your observation. 

i see the following ways to tackle this problem: 
- forget xml and use a different encoding which is more "lighweight"
- switch to diameter 
- compress xml objects

i personally think that the privacy issues are worth thinking about these
options. 

ciao
hannes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schnizlein [mailto:jschnizl@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 1:53 AM
> To: Tschofenig Hannes
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-jones-radius-geopriv
> 
> 
> I am sorry I quoted the wrong part of RFC 2865.
> The length of an attribute is at most 255, one octet [page 25].
> It seems unlikely that GML, or any XML, would be efficient 
> enough to be carried in a RADIUS attribute.
> 
> At 01:12 PM 2/10/2004, John Schnizlein wrote:
> >> One concern, if this location configuration information (LCI)
> >> is to be carried over RADIUS, is that the example in section 6
> >> seems to be 993 characters long. This one attribute seems to be
> >> taking a large share of the maximum RADIUS packet size of 4096.
> >> [RFC 2865, p 15] Is there enough room for everything else that
> >> would be expected with this attribute?
> 

--
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/>