[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Vendor-Id for radext extended attributes

To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Vendor-Id for radext extended attributes
From: "David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:59:12 -0400
In-reply-to: <000101c800e0$43a99280$cafcb780$@net>
Organization: Elbrys Networks, Inc.
References: <000101c800e0$43a99280$cafcb780$@net>

Glen Zorn writes...

> I think that it might be a better idea ... for the radext extended
> attributes to instead request a separate Vendor-Id for the radext
> WG & encourage other WGs that need new attributes to do the same.

I could see having a PEN for RADIUS Extended Attributes on a per
organization (i.e. per SDO) basis.  It seems to me that having a PEN per
working group is overly granular.



--
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/>

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Vendor-Id for radext extended attributes
  - From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>

References:
- Vendor-Id for radext extended attributes
  - From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>

Prev by Date: Re: RFC 3576bis Question: DAC and RADIUS server not co-located
Next by Date: Re: RFC 3576bis Question: DAC and RADIUS server not co-located
Previous by thread: RE: Vendor-Id for radext extended attributes
Next by thread: RE: Vendor-Id for radext extended attributes
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread