Re: Revisions to RFC 4005 (was RE: Consideration of draft-lior-radius-attribute-type-extension-02.txt)

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

David B. Nelson wrote:
> The RADIUS Design Guidelines document is targeted to be a BCP, and to
> describe current usages and recommend attribute design practices based on
> RADIUS as it is defined today.  That's the WG's consensus.  As such, it's
> probably the wrong vehicle to use for introducing new usages, such as
> suggesting Diameter AVPs with type 26.

  Current uses already involve getting RADIUS VSA's in non-RFC formats
into Diameter packets.  Whether we like to admit it or not, the practice
already seems to be following David Mitton's draft:

http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-mitton-diameter-radius-vsas-01.txt

  So it is a BCP.  Sort of.

> If RFC 2005 needs to be updated, I think that ought to be done in a separate
> document, either in RADEXT or in DIME.

  That's more work.  Do we have an editor for that document, or someone
willing to shepherd it?  Is the WG against the idea of having suggested
practices updating holes in previous specs?

  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/>