RE: REMINDER: RADEXT WG Last call on "Extended RADIUS Attributes"

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

Stefan Winter <mailto://stefan.winter@restena.lu> writes:

> Hello,
> 
> a few comments:
> 
> TLV encoding and M flag: All examples stuff the maximum payload into
> the first fragment, set the M bit and put the remainder into the next
> fragment. This is fine and sensible, but not enforced in the
> description.
> One might also do any other split of the data, like if there is a 300
> byte data to be transmitted, 150 in the first fragment, 150 in the
> second.
> There also is no clarification whether fragmenting should only occur
> when it is needed. Without requiring this, a compliant implementation
> could as well split the 5-byte data "Hello" into five fragments. I
> suggest to add a bit of wording to strongly discourage that.

Maybe just put a note like "If you are a total moron, stop reading now." in
the Abstract?

...

> Finally, Security Considerations: This section is rather short, I
> suggest to expand the "TBD" :-)

Text is welcome.

...



--
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/>