RE: Consideration of draft-lior-radius-attribute-type-extension-02.txt

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

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> One question I have is whether the Extended Attributes are only to be
> allocated once the existing Standards space has been exhausted, or
> whether allocation in the extended space can be requested before that. 
> It seems that some specifications could benefit from the extended
> functionality, prior to exhaustion of the standard space.

  I agree.  Anything *needing* the new functionality should use it.
Everything else should use the existing attribute space.
[gwz] 
[gwz] You must be a better fortuneteller than I, because I usually find it
difficult to predict the future uses of a new thing (e.g., whether it would
be useful someday to add a certain attribute to a group).  I would prefer to
say that if you _know_ for a fact that the new attribute a) is standalone &
will never be included in a group and b) it is not possible for it ever to
take a value that would be longer than 253 octets (i.e., an integer), then
use the existing standard attribute space, otherwise use the extended space.

> It seems to me like there might be reason to request allocation of a PEN
> for the Extended Attribute space, as well as another PEN for additional
> standard attributes.

  Yes, and yes.
[gwz] 
[gwz] Apparently you guys know what you're talking about but I sure don't:
AFAIK, Prrivate Enterprise Numbers have nothing to do with standard RADIUS
attributes.  Are you suggesting that there should be _two_ new attribute
formats, one w/a Tag, etc. & the other without?  Why?


--
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/>