RE: RADEXT charter for comment...

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

Joel Halpern writes...

> If we want this restriction to say that sub-attributes shall use VSAs
with
> a specified vendor-ID, then we need to say that. (I hope not.)

I think that the notion is that sub-attributes may be encapsulated in
the VSA attribute or in a new, but similar, SDO-Specific Attribute
(SSA).  I interpret the formatting restrictions to be the same for
either VSA or SSA, with the difference that anyone can create VSAs, and
the format shown in RFC 2865 is a SHOULD, while only SDOs can create
SSAs, and the format shown in RFC 2865 (for VSAs) is a MUST.  Whether
the SSA shares the type code of 26 with VSA and is only distinguished by
the OUI value (belonging to an SDO), or has a distinct type code is, up
for debate.

> If we want this restriction to say that for consistency with the VSA
usage
> in 2865, all sub-attributes shall be one level deep, we should say
that.

I would very much like to say that.

> I think that the sentence as written does not say what we mean.

I guess that was the basis of my comment, seeking a clarification.

-- Dave



--
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/>