[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: review of draft-sterman
Miguel Garcia wrote:
Sure, these directives have the same syntax, but obviously share
different semantics. Further more, we just transport the value of the
directive, not the "param=value" pair. Consequently, I don't think all
these AVPs can all use the same attribute. How can we distinguish what
is being transported?
By looking at what's in front of the '=', which you need
to do for Dig-authp anyway?
But I see your point. I need to think about this before
I become convinced, however :-)
I have a question: in Diameter SIP app, all these AVPs are part of
parenet grouped AVP. I believe RADIUS does not offer the concept of
grouped AVPs. Does it represent a problem if we define a Diameter SIP
app grouped AVP that contains RADIUS AVPs. as it is the proposal?
I think it would imply that you'd not use grouped AVP, just
a set of AVPs. Your ABNF would be longer, but otherwise there
are no practical consequences, I think.
Alternative idea: use some of the extended RADIUS attribute
format ideas and allocate the numbers from the Diameter space.
For the time being, I am leaning towards the RADIUS address space.
Me too.
--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/>