RE: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mitton-diameter-radius-vsas-00.txt

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Alan DeKok <> supposedly scribbled:

>   The discussion in the meeting was about size issues with Diameter &
> RADIUS.  But RADIUS already has size issues.  People try to send
> 100's of long string attributes via RADIUS, and it doesn't work.  

I think that the standard answer would be that that is perfectly acceptable RADIUS behavior, and to use Diameter; what we were talking about was a bug that makes transitioning gracefully from RADIUS to Diameter extremely painful, if not impossible.

> 
>   Maybe a general method to extend RADIUS would help for Diameter,
> and large packets? 
> 
>   How does the issues raised about flags interact with the
> capabilities problem statement?  They appear to overlap. 
> 
>   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/>