RE: Review requested: draft-ietf-radext-filter-02.txt

[<jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com>]

Hi,

I have basically few issues related to the tags. RFC2868 says that tags
are between 0x01-0x1f. Then RFC2882 says tags are between 0x01-0x3f
(and giving the reference to RFC2868) like this draft also. I lack
history here for the reason, which I assume exists. But I guess we 
should go for the original range if there is no compelling reason
to use the extended range. Also why using tags in a middle of range?
Can't we just use 0x01 when the attribute is not concatenated and
0x02 -> 0x1f when the attribute is concatenated?

Honestly, whether we use tags or one bit, I don't really care ;)
Maybe the one bit approach as suggested by some ppl could be simpler.

Cheers,
	Jouni









> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> Sent: 3. lokakuuta 2006 23:14
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Review requested: draft-ietf-radext-filter-02.txt
> 
> A new version has been posted to the archive:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-filter-02.txt
> 
> Does this version address the open issues (198 & 202)?   Are 
> there any other 
> issues/problems with it?
> 
> 3GPP asked out the status of it in the last IETF/3GPP liaison 
> conference 
> call.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>
> 

--
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/>