RE: paradox

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

Barney Wolff <mailto:barney@databus.com> supposedly scribbled:

...

>> 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)?  
> 
> I'm always willing to be educated - please point me to a document
> that solves the attribute length problem when there can be more than
> one of the attribute in the message. 

Just to be clear, I don't think I've claimed that there is a document, just that there are known methods that (slightly extended) to deal with the problem.  Off the top of my head, RFC 2868 specifies an (admittedly unsophisticated) method to group related attributes together using "tags".  Although that document only uses tags to group attributes of different types, I don't see why a similar technique would not work with attributes of the same type with the addition of the rule that all instances of the same attribute with the same tag be concatenated in order.  A problem would arise if you wanted to group long attributes with others but I didn't think that we were talking about that...  

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/>