Re: Questions on modified Extended Attribute format?

[Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>]

Avi Lior wrote:
> 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.

  The traditional RADIUS data model has involved defining new attributes
for new semantics, even if the contents are commonly understood items
like IP addresses.

> 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?

  Diameter implementations are more flexible and capable about AVP's
than RADIUS implementations.  This is solely because the Diameter AVP
format is more flexible and capable than the RADIUS AVP format.

  If we agree to use the Diameter format for extended attributes, then
we would obtain all of the benefits of that format for new attributes.
And that format is more flexible and capable than the current proposal
in the extended attributes draft.

  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/>