Re: no overall type in Extended Attributes

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Glen Zorn wrote:
> Not historically.  In RFC 2869, for example, the Tag field is used to group
> sets of attributes in an ad-hoc fashion: there's no requirement placed on
> the actual membership  of the groups & different groups can contain
> different sets of attributes in the same message.

  Then I'm not clear on why the extended attribute format has tags.  I
thought it was about grouping TLV's?

> It's a very inefficient encapsulation, too, since all of the TLVs could be
> carried in a single extended attribute.

  But they can be... the draft says that multiple attributes can go into
one Extended-Attribute, so long as it's not fragmented.  Since the
extended attibute *header* contains the tag, all of the attributes it
encapsulates inherit that tag.

  Or am I missing something completely?

  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/>