RE: Vendor-Id for radext extended attributes

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

> 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.
[gwz] 
Perhaps, but it opens the possibility of treating "blocks" of attributes in
much the same way as Class C IP addresses: once the PEN is assigned, the
types "beneath" it could be self-managed (with the caveat that their usage
be documented in a freely available form (e.g., an RFC) of course.
[/gwz]
...

--
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/>