RE: no overall type in Extended Attributes

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

Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@deployingradius.com] writes:

> 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?

Hmm.  I seem to be having some serious problems communicating today,
or...anyway, I used the word "group" or its plural 3 times in one sentence.
How do you get the idea that tags aren't used for grouping?

> 
> > 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.

OK, how would you specify this behavior in a document so that humans could
actually understand it?

> 
>   Or am I missing something completely?

Or maybe I am...

> 
>   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/>