RE: Questions on modified Extended Attribute format?

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

Glen Zorn wrote:
> During the meeting last week, I thought that there were a couple of
> questions/comments on Jabber regarding the changes that I proposed to
> the extended attribute format (adding a bit to distinguish between new
> TLVs and legacy RADIUS attributes in extended attributes) but I didn't
> quite catch them.  Would those who presented those remarks mind
> repeating them in email?  TIA.

  WiMAX uses the same attribute format as proposed here.  Changes that
are incompatible with WiMAX should be discouraged.
[gwz] 
I'm not at all sure why that would be the case; I don't recall the IETF
bending over backwards to be compatible w/anyone else's VSAs...
[/gwz]

  If it's just stealing a bit (which WiMAX doesn't use), that sounds
fine.  The ability to group legacy RADIUS attributes via a method other
than tags would be good.
[gwz] 
Actually, I've convinced myself that a) this idea was not quite baked & b) I
was wrong about making the Ext-Type field just one octet.  If we make the
Ext-Type field 16 bits in length _and_ start numbering the new attributes at
0x100, that would seem to solve a couple of problems nicely.
[/gwz]

  One question: If we DO permit this for legacy RADIUS attributes, what
does the "C" bit mean?  Do we use the WiMAX method for splitting
attributes encrypted with the "Tunnel-Password" method?
[gwz] 
I don't know what method that is, but I'm not sure why those attributes
would be treated differently than others. 
[/gwz]

  Alan DeKok.


--
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/>