[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Attribute Design Guidelines and RADIUS layering (was:[RADIUS FIXES] Authorize Only / RADIUS layering criteria)

To: "Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>
Subject: Re: Attribute Design Guidelines and RADIUS layering (was:[RADIUS FIXES] Authorize Only / RADIUS layering criteria)
From: "Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:02:50 -0400
Cc: "Emile van Bergen" <openradius-radextwg@e-advies.nl>, radiusext@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:40:18 EDT." <2A5E4540D4D5934D9A1E7E0B0FDB2D6901032484@MAANDMBX2.ets.enterasys.com>

"Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com> wrote:
> I would like to reiterate that I think re-definition, over-loading or
> private agreements to modify the semantics of any IETF standard RADIUS
> attribute is harmful to the integrity and multi-vendor interoperability
> of the protocol.

  Let's add that text to the "issues & fixes" draft.

> It *is* important that vendors be able to use VSAs for proprietary
> features that do not have wider applicability.  It is also important
> that vendors, other WGs, or other SDOs be able to create and properly
> document fully interoperable IETF standard attributes, when appropriate.

  Agreed.  Let's re-iteratite again in the draft.

  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/>

References:
- Attribute Design Guidelines and RADIUS layering (was:[RADIUS FIXES] Authorize Only / RADIUS layering criteria)
  - From: "Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>

Prev by Date: Attribute Design Guidelines and RADIUS layering (was:[RADIUS FIXES] Authorize Only / RADIUS layering criteria)
Next by Date: Re: Issue: Vendor Specifc Attribute Values
Previous by thread: Attribute Design Guidelines and RADIUS layering (was:[RADIUS FIXES] Authorize Only / RADIUS layering criteria)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread