Re: Rationalizing the RADIUS data model

[Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>]

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 08:57:12PM +0300, john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> I also support having a universal, standard model for attributes.  If 
> folks have extended RADIUS in 'non-interoperable' ways, then it is their
> 'bad-luck' to have done so; I don't have a problem if these VSAs were
> made non-compliant, because they really are not complying to anything
> right now.

I would strongly protest any move to make arbitrarily-formatted vendor-
specific attributes retroactively prohibited.  There is absolutely no
justification for any such move.  If you wish to contrain future
vendor-specific attributes, you MUST define a new Type code for that
and confine the restriction to users of the new code.

As for "extended RADIUS in 'non-interoperable' ways" the RFCs have
always said that a robust implementation SHOULD support the content
of a VSA as undistinguished octets.

The suggested VSA content format has never been more than a SHOULD.
Are you really proposing to make it retroactively a MUST?

-- 
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/>