Re: Questions on modified Extended Attribute format?

[Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>]

Glen Zorn wrote:
> 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...

  The last thing I need right now is yet another incompatible VSA format.

> 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.

  I understand... I'm not sure I completely agree.

>   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]

  Neither am I.  But they are.

  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/>