Re: Rationalizing the RADIUS data model

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

Nelson, David wrote:

> I'm really opposed to "string" and "sub-string" based protocols.  RADIUS
> and Diameter are AVP based protocols, and I think it would be a major
> mistake to deviate from this design paradigm.  If sufficiently well
> described, string based protocols can be made interoperable, but it's
> generally much easier to achieve interoperability with AVP based
> protocols.

I think I generally agree that AVP is a better approach. At
the time that I wrote my e-mail that you responded to, I was
still thinking of how to make everything fit within the same
model. It now appears that choosing a new attribute number may
make this unnecessary.

> I would support adopting the "universal" data model for all attributes,
> including VSAs.  However, I suspect that the implementers who have
> enjoyed the vast freedom of "artistic expression" under the current VSA
> rules (basically none) would object.  It would likely make some existing
> VSAa non-compliant. 

I think we can avoid that, by picking a new attribute number.
But we already discussed that in other e-mails.

--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/>