[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
LC cmts: Extended Attrs
- To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: LC cmts: Extended Attrs
- From: "Greg Weber" <gdweber@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:30:50 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=K6tAd4u+6XAafcryGFKj2qMj6jj3YxGAa0uy/MyTlCRuv5inmDc5ylyE9NM28MG38rj/bnbkpf2Vm8YnumjD461sVLpupYIED7rk3asNwFu3elrgPvr715kouCUlElW1GAirZ8H4s7/1gwDAvvfIY11LmZVRUzqDkm6D0+fh/Lg=
I have some comments on: draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-00.txt
* In section 5, the Ext-Length field is defined as the length of the Extended
Attribute. I think you mean it's the length of the TLV (multiple TLVs can be
in the Extended Attribute). I think that would make the value ">=3", not ">=4".
* It's probably worth calling out any artifacts of overloading attribute 26
which wouldn't apply to standard attributes in the original number space
(or apply to overloading a new attribute instead of 26). For example,
attribute 26 is already specifically excluded from some RADIUS message
types, e.g. CoA-NAK, so new Extended Attributes couldn't be included in
those messages, but new standard attribute could be. Also, are malformed
VSAs always treated just like malformed non-VSAs?
* I think it would be useful to explicitly mention if recursive grouping is
allowed and that Extended Attributes cannot be grouped with non-Extended
Attributes.
* It's probably useful to mention what happens when an Extended Attribute's
tag is non-zero and it contains multiple TLVs (this does not seem to be
excluded -as multiple TLVs are when the M-bit is on).
* RFC2865 specifically calls out the proxies can't reorder attributes
of the same
type; does this doc need to create the same restriction for Ext-Type?
* I actually didn't have a lot of editorial comments :-) Possibly the M-bit
could be renamed to avoid potential confusion with Diameter.
Greg
On Feb 10, 2008 3:50 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is a reminder of the ongoing RADEXT WG last call on the Extended
> RADIUS Attributes document, prior to sending it to the IESG for
> consideration as a Proposed Standard. The document is available for
> inspection here:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-00.txt
>
> RADEXT WG last call will last until February 14, 2008. Please send comments
> to the RADEXT WG mailing list (radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format
> described on the RADEXT WG Issues page:
> http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/
--
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/>