RE: Questions on modified Extended Attribute format?

["Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Regarding allowing legacy attributes to be grouped within the extended
attribute.

Lets look at it from a practical perspective.  If I am writing a new
"Application" which will use grouping and I need to encode the IP
address of the NAS.

In Glen's proposal I would reuse the existing attribute NAS-IP vs. what
others are saying I would have to create a new attribute called
New-NAS-IP and include that in the grouped attribute.

Glen's approach *seems* more appropriate no?

I dont understand Alan's comment.  The NAS-IP that appears in the RADIUS
message is semantically different then the NAS-IP attribute that is
going to be grouped.  The semantics for the former case is defined by
RFC2865 and the semantics of the later case would be defined by a new
RFC.

This is no different in Diameter.  An attribute can appear standalone
and also be included in a group (for that matter, in many groups).  The
definition of the attribute is the same in both cases, but the semantics
is different right?

So what am I missing?

--
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/>