[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: paradox
- To: "Barney Wolff" <barney@databus.com>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
- Subject: RE: paradox
- From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:31:11 -0700
- Authentication-results: sj-dkim-5.cisco.com; header.From=gwz@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=862; t=1152563487; x=1153427487; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim5001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=gwz@cisco.com; z=From:=22Glen=20Zorn=20\(gwz\)=22=20<gwz@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20paradox; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Do5wsf6BR3aunX3djzC+R3qJ0ZBQ=3D; b=Z6sIY+kN304BHa+p1v3mByogkFyOuqllXJfQrB4jOngumlndHjXgZIIFv2zor0+3t4ZiFc4n uWxCBTMu0D43oOMeh+kshRRY+80mGHlT01M8+CWAvAX603hEN5/PB3oI;
Barney Wolff <> supposedly scribbled:
> I find it mildly astonishing, listening to today's radext session,
> that the group seemed to feel that the only problem worth fixing is
> the 255 limit on AVP type, when just a few minutes before the debate
> was over what to do with filter/traffic rules that go over the
> 253-byte limit.
>
> Apperently people feel that it's preferable to debate this issue
> every time it comes up, rather than solve it once.
If you alleviate the attribute namespace shortage, aren't there established ways of dealing w/overly long values (up to the message size limit anyway)?
>
> --
> Barney Wolff I never met a computer I didn't like.
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/>