Re: Rationalizing the RADIUS data model

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

Alan DeKok wrote:

>   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.

Yes, I see that this could happen. I agree
that a non-zero IETF vendor ID could solve this
problem.

But is that all, or should we also be worried about
code changes (not just attribute number changes in
a dictionary) when moving between the vendor, SDO,
and extended IETF attribute space. Seems like it would
be good that a transition from one space to other
does not mean a radical change in the kind of data
types one can use, for instance.

--Jari

--
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/>