Re: Questions on modified Extended Attribute format?

[Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>]

Glen Zorn wrote:
> Not to mention being "backward compatible", right?  Oh, wait, that is
> only a requirement for things you don't like...

  Putting the invective aside, I think you've missed much of what I've said.

 - the format AS PROPOSED IN THE DOCUMENT is OK.
   - I'm not perfectly happy with it, but it's OK
   - it leverages a format used for other purposes: that's great
   - I am fine with it not being "backwards compatible"
   - it achieved WG consensus: that's a miracle

 - The "16-bit" variant recently proposed on the list is not OK
   - it's less nice than the format in the document
   - it's yet another "magic" vsa format
   - it introduces even more incompatibilities than the other format
   - it has not acheived WG consensus
   - it throws away the consensus obtained for the other format.

  To put it bluntly: every argument FOR the 16-bit variant of the
extended format is also an argument FOR the Diameter AVP format.  If you
are going to seriously propose a 16-bit variant of the extended format,
then I think there is a contingent of this WG that would have issues
with that.

  My preference, in order of priority:

  1) extended format AS IN THE DOCUMENT
  2) Diameter AVP format
  3) 16 bit variant of the extended format

  (1) has achieved WG consensus.  (2) and (3) have not.  Can we stop
this, and just move on?

 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/>