RE: RADIUS Design Guidelines

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

Barney Wolff <> scribbled on Monday, August 28, 2006 9:30 AM:

> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 11:54:21AM -0400, Nelson, David wrote:
>> 
>> The currently evolving proposals for Extended Attributes, solve some
>> of the issues that have been identified in the Design Guidelines
>> draft: shortage of attribute IDs, grouping of attributes, and an
>> explicit method of fragmentation and reassembly.
> 
> I'm confused.  I thought the tag was being used for fragmentation and
> reassembly, which would seem to preclude its use for grouping.  
> Can somebody clarify?  
> 

We already know how to send & receive XL attributes, via in-order
fragmentation, transmission & concatenation.  There is no need to use
tags for this.  The limitation of using tags to group attributes in
conjunction w/this traditional method is that only one XL attribute of a
given (extended) type can belong to a group.  If this is a serious
problem, then some method of distinguishing the beginning of a new
attribute from the middle of the previous one would be required.

> My own preference would be to use an extended-type of 0 to indicate
> continuation, rather than the tag field.  

If we use anything like the customary method of dealing w/XL attributes,
there doesn't seem to be any need for continuation indicator: an
attribute starts & continues until a) another attribute starts or b) the
end of the message is reached.

> But I'm just an anti-tag
> bigot.  
> 
> --
> Barney Wolff         I never met a computer I didn't like.

Hope this helps,

~gwz

--
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/>