[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rationalizing the RADIUS data model

Hi Avi,

I strongly agree with this statement. 

Yes, so do I and probably most of the folks on
this list. However, if you read the subsequent
e-mails you'll see that we discussed this and
came up with an approach that would make your
and Barney's worry go away (see below). Sorry
for the confusion. Does alt 2 or 3 work for
you?

--Jari

Finally, lets talk about what to do specification & status wise
for the old VSA format, should we adopt something like what I
proposed. I think the options are as follows:

   1. Make it illegal, i.e., MUST NOT use. Equipment that gets
      updated would suddenly stop working when someone sends
      it an old format VSA. We clearly don't want this.

2. Keep it as it is, no change in behaviour or status.

3. Make the use of the old format a SHOULD NOT for new attributes.

      Possibly combined with some status change of the old format,
      maybe "historic".

   4. Make the use of the old format a MUST NOT for new attributes.
      This may be too strong as well.

So, I think we want something along the lines of 2 or 3. Personally,
I would go for a "SHOULD NOT". 


--
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/>