[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/>