Re: New Technical Issues RE: WG last call in progress on VLAN/Priority Draft

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

"Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> wrote:
> >   If the content of an attribute is a complex structure as
> > determined by the application, I would *prefer* that the
> > structure is defined elsewhere, and the RADIUS docs simply
> > reference it.
> 
> I don't agree.  Why should that be?

  RFC 3576
...
3.1.  EAP-Message

   Description

      This attribute encapsulates EAP [RFC2284]
...

  Instead of having a normitive reference, let's cut & paste big
chunks of ASCII art from RFC 2284 here.

  Oh, wait...

> Again,  what you are saying if it doesn't fit into my dictionary then I
> don't think its RADIUS.

  I'm pretty clear that that's *not* what I'm saying.  I've been
trying to convince you of this, but for some reason I'm not
succeeding.

  I'm not sure how you conclude that I'm trying to forbid complex
attributes.  Perhaps I should stop protesting, and just let you
believe what you want about my opinions.  But *please* don't claim
publicly I'm trying to forbid complex attributes.  That is
demonstratably not true.  Just read my messages.

  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/>