Re: Rationalizing the RADIUS data model

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> wrote:
> > 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.

  My concern is not that, but implementations which assume that
"vendor-id == 0", means an invalid packet.  There's a reason that the
attribute Id of "0" wasn't assigned.  We probably shouldn't assign a
vendor Id of zero, either.

>  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?

  It wouldn't hurt.  I know in implementations I've worked with,
checks which assume "0 == invalid" have caught programming errors.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>