RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-radext-design-00.txt

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

[gwz] ...
> 2.1.3.  Complex Attribute Usage

This section explains why packing complex attributes into conventional
attributes (e.g. into sub-fields of a string data type) is disadvantageous.
It gives no advice to those who really want to do this, however.  What is
the "party line" here?  I know we have features in the Extended RADIUS
Attributes draft to address this.  Do we want to reference that document
here? 
[gwz] I think so.
[gwz] 
Do we have recommendations for those that want complex attributes
and don't want to use Extended Attributes?  Or is using the Extended
Attribute format the only recommended option?
[gwz] 
[gwz] I would suggest that the extended attribute format be the recommended
option, but nevertheless to provide guidance to those who don't want to use
it (if we have any thing useful to say on the subject).



--
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/>