Comment on Capabilities Exchange

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Jari,

Thanx for the review.  I have an immediate comment on the following:

Jari wrote:

Snip-------
This does not seem to match the usual (?) RADIUS style
where integer/enumerated attributes have a 32-bit
integer.

>    The format of this Integer is as follows:
>     
>    0xCCCTSSSS
>     
>    Where: 
>      CCC is a 12-bit indicator that identifies the capability ID.
(snip)
>      SSSS is 16-bit indicator that identifies the sub-capabilities ID.

Uh oh. This is getting pretty complicated, and requires server side code
(not just regexp) to handle. Are we really, really sure that we couldn't
survive without the sub-capability IDs?
-------

The attribute is a 32 bit integer. It' not intended to be an enumeration.

Sub-capabilities are important. These are used in 3GPP2 for instance.

So the intention was to allow the base RADIUS -- which is driven by
Dictionaries and policy files to treat this as an integer and only check the
12-it indicator. The sub-capability would be used by the actual
applications.

If we loose sub-capabilities then we may have an explosion of capabilities.
I think this is a reasonable tradeoff.





--
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/>