RE: The RADIUS attribute space: an assessment

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Mauricio Sanchez writes...

> Wasn't there a draft previously that talked to making 
> the RADIUS message format a bit more Diameter-like?

Yes.

> What happened to that draft?

It was discussed at IETF-65, and maybe a little on the list.  There was
substantial push-back.  Some folks didn't like the idea of extending
RADIUS, some didn't like the Diameter format, and others has their own
favorite format for and extended attribute.  In short, no consensus.

> Maybe that could be used as a beginning for this problem? 

Yes, I think so.  We first need to agree that there is a problem.  Some
think that the "problem" is simply failing to migrate to Diameter.  We
then need to renew the discussion, with the idea of finding an
acceptable solution.

> I assume you're about to propose that this general problem 
> be a WG work item?

There is currently a milestone on our charter page for Extended
Attributes.  It is a normative dependency of the Design Guidelines
document.


--
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/>