Re: Issue: Vendor Specifc Attribute Values

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

"Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com> wrote:
> 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.

  Absolutely.  I have no objections to the use of VSE's, but I do have
conditions on their use.  Use and design of VSE's SHOULD follow from a
standards process.  Otherwise, existing standards are re-used in
situations where they may not be appropriate.

  I view VSE's as a minor shortcoming in the original RADIUS spec.  We
have VSA's, so it isn't a large leap to standardize *some* form of
VSE's.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>