RE: Extensibility of draft-ietf-radext-filter-rules

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>]

Alan DeKok writes...

> However, the filter rules document could quickly use many attributes,
> exhausting the standard attribute space.

That's would not be the intent.  Read on.

>   Is it time to allow sub-attributes?

That's exactly what the proposed Extended Attributes work provides.  One
level of nesting for sub-attributes.

> I will not that the guidelines document also has them as not 
> recommended.

For RADIUS "Classic", that's correct.

>   That would permit the filter rules document to define sub-attributes
> using the normal RADIUS data types, and encapsulate them in a "filter
> rules" AVP.  Given the choice between implementing sub-attributes and
> parsing text strings, I strongly prefer sub-attributes.

That's how the filter rules draft would be designed using the extended
attributes draft.

BTW, I think we have completed the consensus call on that document, but I
don't remember if I saw the official result announced.



--
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/>