Re: Rationalizing the RADIUS data model

[Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 06:49:20AM -0700, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > So, just for my clarification: what are the "potential
> > backward compatibility issues" with a)? I think we don't
> > have vendor=0 attributes yet, or do we? If we don't have
> > them, it appears that the IETF can define the contents
> > of the extended attribute as we please, no?
> 
> I think that was the question.  Are vendors using vendorID=0 already for
> some purpose?

Perhaps not, but I wonder if there are examples of tests for nonzero
indicating the existence of a vendor-id.  In that sense, id==0 is
special, and perhaps the solution would be cleaner if an id were
allocated to the IETF.  What could it hurt?
Barney

-- 
Barney Wolff         http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.

--
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/>