RE: no overall type in Extended Attributes

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

David B. Nelson <mailto://d.b.nelson@comcast.net>  writes:

> Glen Zorn writes...
> 
> > ...the current definition of the Extended Attributes
> > doesn't in general allow the definition of an overall type for the
> > Attribute in question: an Extended Attribute is basically just an
> > unordered set of TLVs.
> 
> In other words, the Extended Attribute is a "super attribute" or
> "wrapper
> attribute" that contains other "attributes", 

In other words, the Extended Attributes have the same qualities as RFC 2865
VSAs.

> which you refer to as
> "TLVs",
> to distinguish them from standalone attributes.
> 
> The issue is that one cannot "name" any particular group of aggregated
> TLVs.

I wouldn't call it an "issue" -- whether it's an issue is what is to be
determined.  It is a characteristic.

> One solution is to simply add a Group-Name TLV to the Extended
> Attribute.
> I'm not sure that addresses the intended use, however.  I suspect that
> the
> use is to "call up" a pre-defined grouping by name.

I don't know what use it would actually be, outside of making discussions of
the protocol a little easier.  It certainly doesn't modify the operation of
the protocol.

> 
> I think I'd like to see some "real-world" examples of use cases
> discussed
> here before I would want to attempt to make a decision on whether this
> is a
> serious issue or not.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>



--
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/>