Re: Guidelines Document Discussion

[Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Avi wrote:
>> If I have an enumeration (of TRUE or FALSE) using a
>> 32-bit value is wasteful in view of the size limitation of both
>> attributes and packet size.
> 
> Are you saying that the VSA space should allow one octet or two octet
> data types?

  I don't see why.  While it may be useful, a quick perusal of the
dictionaries shows few existing definitions of one or two-byte data types.

> We could certainly recommend the use of unique name spaces for VSAs
> (e.g. SDO-Name) so as to avoid confusion.

  By all means, yes.  Since only attribute spaces were deemed to be
vendor-specific, vendors have used non-unique name spaces for VSA's,
making inter-operation with multiple vendors more difficult.

>> [Avi] interoperability within the SDO or with others?  I think within
>> the SDO primarily.  To achieve interoperability between SDOs, and SDO is
>> free to use another SDOs attributes.  It would be helpful for us RADIUS
>> vendors if the encoding was the same though.
> 
> Right.  Assuming that the SDOs utilize similar attribute formats, and
> the specifications are published, this should work.  In particular, I
> would like to eliminate the need for SDOs to utilize RADIUS standard
> attributes just in order to have their specification widely
> disseminated.  In the long term the IETF should strive to assist SDOs in
> defining their own RADIUS attributes.

  That is a very good idea.  It would enhance interoperability, and
reduce problems.

  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/>