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

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Glen Zorn wrote:
> However, the filter rules document could quickly use many attributes,
> exhausting the standard attribute space.
> [gwz] 
> [gwz] I'm a bit confused by this statement: the attribute extension draft
> basically doubles the size of the existing 
> "standard attribute space.  Are you saying that the filter rules would take
> up that whole extension?

  No, but it defines a lot of attributes that can be interpreted ONLY in
a grouped context.  It's just easier to define a filter rule attribute,
and pack it with sub-attributes that the filter rules need.  It means
that the filter rules are also easily extensible.

>   Given the utility of sub-attributes, and the fact that most vendors
> have implemented them already, or will implement them for WiMAX, I'm
> inclined to add them to the extended attributes draft.
> [gwz] What changes would you make?

  If the current draft doesn't have sub-attributes, just used 8-bit
sub-TLV's, and creating a "tlv" type would be sufficient.

  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/>