Re: Proposed Resolution to Issue 198: Attribute Concatenation/Splitting

[Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:22:41PM -0400, Avi Lior wrote:
> 
> This TAG thing is very complex. We can get rid of the '0' tag
> requirement by saying that every NAS Filter Rule MUST have a unique
> non-zero TAG value in the range of 0x01 to 0x3F.
> If an NAS filter rule attribute needs to be fragmeneted (length is
> greater then 252) then the fragments is placed in a subsequent
> NAS-Filter-Rule attribute and the same TAG value is used. 

Why would we want to limit the number of possible rules?
Why would we want to hide from the receiver whether a rule is going
to be segmented?

The "TAG thing" is very complex because we're using an 8-bit field
to convey 1 bit of meaning.  We could just as well say:

	If TAG is non-zero, the next NAS-Filter-Rule attribute is a
	continuation of this one.  If TAG is zero, this attribute is
	the last or only segment of this rule.

The attempt to reuse the existing tag mechanism has failed.  It's
time to move on.

-- 
Barney Wolff         I never met a computer I didn't like.

--
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/>