RE: Rationalizing the RADIUS data model

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

Jari Arkko writes...

> 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.

That is the $64,000 question.  In rationalizing the data models, one
assumes we mean that the same data models will be usable for VSA, SSA,
and potentially IETF-Extended-Attributes (IEA??).  Whether the set of
"universal" data format rules (the rationalized data model) is as
loosely defined, and as subject to liberal interpretation by
implementers, as the current rules for VSAs will be the crux of the
discussion on this subject, I rather suspect.

One possible approach is the definition of a unified data model that is
more flexible than the current standard data types defined in RFC 2865,
but less flexible than the current VSA rules.  VSAs could still use the
original, loose VSA data model, but if there is an expectation that a
VSA might be promoted to an SSA or standard attribute, the developer
would be constrained to use the new universal data model.

-- 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/>