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

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

Glen Zorn wrote:
> Maybe.  What do you have in mind?  I don't think so, because standard
> Diameter AVPs don't have the 'V' bit set & AFAIK, no existing VSAs of any
> variety have a Vendor code of 0.

  That would be backwards compatible, and wouldn't require changes to
existing implementations.

>  We may have a problem translating the new
> RADIUS "grouped attributes" to Diameter, though, because don't Diameter
> grouped AVPs have a fixed syntax?

  Yes.  We could say that the extended attributes are encapsulated in a
Diameter attribute 26 as-is... except that attribute 26 isn't allowed in
Diameter packets.

  However it is done, it looks like we have to update 4005 to obtain
Diameter compatibility for the extended attributes.
[gwz] 
[gwz] I really think that that is going a bit overboard.  Is there some
reason that these things could not be handled (at worst) in a document
updating 4005 instead of obsoleting it?

  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/>