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 conceptthat is unique to the IETF.
I think that the issue is that there is no inherent interoperability benefit from rehosting VSAs that already conform to the criteria expressed in the document into the RADIUS standard attribute space. Creating two ways to express the same attribute does not help interoperability -- it hurts it. As long as a VSA conforms to the checklist, it can be added to existing RADIUS servers, so that there is no reason for the IETF to force the SDO to use the RADIUS standard space solely in order to get the document reviewed.
In a similar vein, we do not require IEEE 802 MIBs to be rehosted in the IETF standards space before we will review them or recognize them as standards.
-- 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/>