Is it okay to break RADIUS? (was RADIUS V2)

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Right now I don't buy that its okay to break RADIUS.


Avi Lior wrote: 
> > In this case though "base RADIUS" does "break".  All 
> end-points (final 
> > RADIUS servers and clients) will have to parse this new attribute
> type.
> > No?

David Nelson repsonded:

> Yes.  The charter has evolved, and the original desire to not 
> "break" existing RADIUS implementations (in particular data 
> dictionary driven
> implementations) has yielded to the desire to obtain better 
> interoperability with Diameter, simplify RADIUS/Diameter 
> translation requirements, and to unify the IETF standard, 
> SDO-Specific and Vendor-Specific attribute data models.  The 
> charter includes finding ways to accommodate complex data 
> types, while maintaining backwards compatibility with RADIUS 
> RFCs and forward compatibility with Diameter RFCs, as part of 
> the Design Guidelines document.
> 
> It seems clear to me that finding an acceptable solution for 
> complex data types, given the constraints, will require 
> changes to any RADIUS implementation that wishes to use that 
> new attribute format.  The current goal is to find a 
> *single*, *standard* way to accomplish this, so that existing 
> implementations would only need to perform such an upgrade once.
> -- 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/>