RE: Guidelines suggested text for checklist:

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>]

Alan DeKok writes...

> A.6. Allocation of attributes
> 
>    RADIUS attribute specifications SHOULD allocate attributes from the
>    vendor space, rather than requesting an allocation from the RADIUS
>    standard attribute space, for attributes matching any of the
>    following criteria:
> 
>       * attributes relying on data types not defined within RADIUS
>       * attributes intended primarily for use within an SDO
>       * attributes intended primarily for use within a group of SDOs.
> 
>    Even if attributes are allocated from the vendor space, it is often
>    useful for SDOs to publish the specification as an informational RFC,
>    as with [RFC4679].
> 
>    Note that the first bullet point above relaxes many of the previous
>    guidelines on data types, but only within a narrowly defined scope.
>    Extensions to RADIUS that may not be appropriate for widespread use
>    may be acceptable within a limited context.

I think this text is problematic.  I agree that VSAs should be used for
attributes not requiring [any | very much] interoperability, and as
specified in the RADIUS Extended Attributes draft.  Saying that attributes
defined for use in an SDO, or in a group of SDOs, fall into this category
bothers me very much.  After all, what is the IETF but yet another SDO?  I
presume that _all_ SDOs produce specifications that expect a significant
level of multi-vendor interoperability.  Otherwise, why would they bother?
I don't think we want to say that multi-vendor interoperability is a concept
that is unique to the IETF.

What is it we are trying to say here?



--
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/>