Re: new Service-Type

[Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>]

David B. Nelson wrote:
> IANA allocations for RADIUS are controlled by RFC 3575, which reads, in
> part, as follows:
...
> Allocation of new Service-Type values requires IETF Consensus.

  Hmm... OK.

> I personally consider vendor-specific enumerations, as described in RFC 2882
> to be a very bad practice.  Please recall that RFC 2882 describes RADIUS
> practices encountered in implementations, but does not necessisarily
> recommend these practices.  Various versions of the RADIUS Design Guidelines
> draft have included text recommending against using VSEs, in favor of
> standard IANA allocations.

  I understand.  However, VSE's are known to work.

> In my opinion, which is based in part on discussions with the author of RFC
> 2882, that document lists certain practices which ought not to be
> encouraged, in the interests of interoperability, but rather which vendors
> have resorted to in order to bypass the normal IETF processes.
> 
> In any event, new values of Service-Type, VSE or otherwise, do require IANA
> allocation and do require IETF consensus.

  If there is a strong demand for RADIUS allocations, then I agree that
the allocations should be made, and documented.

  If there is not a strong demand for RADIUS allocations, then the
deployments using the new numbers are few and far between.  In that
case, it matters little to the rest of the world which numbers are used.
   In that case, I would recommend VSE's.

  The alternative is to perform allocations for every little variation
of every little application, which will not scale.

  So... is there a strong demand for the allocations requested by the
original document?

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>