RE: RADEXT WG Last Call on "RADIUS Delegated IPv6 Prefix Attribute"

["Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Hi Glen, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Zorn (gwz) [mailto:gwz@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:36 PM
> To: Avi Lior
> Cc: Bernard Aboba; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: RADEXT WG Last Call on "RADIUS Delegated IPv6 
> Prefix Attribute"
> 
> Avi Lior <> supposedly scribbled:
> 
> > I hate to bring this up but the format of this attribute does not 
> > adhere to 2865
> 
> How so?
Where shall I begin?

The closest RADIUs type would be string.  Neither 3162 nor this document
defines the type as string.  In essence both documents (and thank god
they are consistant) are defining a new type, which is a compound type,
that contains a length field counting bits, Octet based variable length
array containing bits.


> > nor to the RADIUS Attribute Guidelines recommendation. 
> So which one should change?

Ah another good question.  It depends who you ask.  But lets see what
are the options:

If you want to keep the encoding then:

I think if you read the guideline document, if this format should be
allowed to stand then it should be covered by RADIUS EXTATTR.  Since the
recommendation in the GUIDELINE document is that any new types should
conform to that document.

Next, the Guideline document could be changed to allow for this
encoding.

Finally, the document should be changed.

If you ask me:

The last option would be sad indeed given the consistancy of the
proposed encoding with 3162.

I don't think EXTATTR folks are thinking about encoding attributes the
way this document and 3162 is proposing -- so that is out of the
question.

So perhaps the Guidelines document should be changed to allow for this
encoding.  That would be my choice.


Maybe others can chirp in. If memory serves me right, based on previous
intense discussions, I am totally surprized by the silence of the chairs
on this matter.

> 
> > 
> > Avi
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> >> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> >> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:02 PM
> >> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> >> Subject: RADEXT WG Last Call on "RADIUS Delegated IPv6 Prefix 
> >> Attribute"
> >> 
> >> This is an announcement of RADEXT WG last call on the "RADIUS
> >> Delegated-IPv6 Prefix Attribute"
> >> document, prior to sending this document on to the IESG for 
> >> consideration as a Proposed Standard.
> >> 
> >> The document is available for inspection here:
> >> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefi
> >> x-00.txt
> >> 
> >> RADEXT WG last call will last until Monday March 27, 2006.
> >> Please send your comments to the RADEXT WG list
> >> (radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format described on the 
> RADEXT Issues 
> >> List: http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/
> >> 
> >> Since all RADEXT WG last calls require at least 5 
> reviewers in order 
> >> to advance the document, please respond indicating that 
> you have read 
> >> the document and find it acceptable, even if you have no issues to 
> >> file.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> 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/>
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> ~gwz
> 
> Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply
>   listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel
> 

--
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/>