Re: review of draft-sterman

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

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/>