RE: Issue: Vendor Specifc Attribute Values

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Alan DeKok writes...

>   2882 uses Vendor-Specific Enumerations (VSE's).  We should use that
> here.

RFC 2882 is certainly a fact-based document.  It reports existing
deployment behaviors.  Its abstract reads:

Abstract

   This document describes current practices implemented in NAS products
   that go beyond the scope of the RADIUS RFCs 2138, 2139 [1,2]. The
   purpose of this effort is to give examples that show the need for
   addressing and standardizing these types of ad-hoc functions.  Since
   many of these features require a matching server support component,
   the ability to deploy and manage interoperable NAS and AAA server
   products is severely hindered.

   These practices are documented here to show functions that are
   obviously desired in developing future AAA protocols for NAS
   deployment.

IMHO, we should be careful about inferring any desired or implied level
of standardization of any of the practices reported in 2882.  If there
is no good reason to the contrary, then following existing convention
may be a good thing.  OTOH, the fact that one or more vendors chose to
implement a needed (or desired) function in a particular fashion should
not set a binding precedent on the RADEXT WG.  These extensions, in all
likelihood, received no IETF review, or even third party review, prior
to their implementation and deployment.  We should look at these "ad
hoc" extensions with a critical eye.



--
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/>