[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Guidelines Document Discussion

  If the name space is SDO-specific.  "SDO-Attribute-Foo".  I don't see
why the IETF would not honor such name spaces.

  Having SDOs define attributes *without* a specific name-space leads to
problems.  Common terms are... common.  Is "DNS-Server" a good attribute
name for multiple SDO's to define?  Probably not.


This makes sense to me; it probably should be part of design guidelines.


Interoperability where we don't have to write or maintain a RADIUS
server implementation for every SDO.  VSA's and name spaces are useful
here, because they mean that one RADIUS server deployment can
interoperate with multiple SDO's simultaneously.
Right. That is a good goal, I think. There is no good reason why one SDO shouldn't be able to reuse VSAs from another SDO, or why configuring a RADIUS server to send a VSA should be any more complex than configuring the same server to send an attribute from the Standards space. We need to make it easier to incorporate VSAs into standard RADIUS implementations. 



--
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/>