RE: Issue 272 resolution

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

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

> Glen Zorn wrote:
> > With all due respect, have you read the draft & the issue?
> 
>   Yes.  The draft discusses 16-bit types.  Not 8 bit "extended" and
> another 8-bit "tlv".  Issue 272 says that the attributes don't have an
> "overall type".
> 
>   I don't know what an "overall type" is.  We already have "extended
> types", so it can't be that.  Maybe data types?  But RADIUS doesn't
> traditionally encode data types in the packet.  Maybe it's grouping...
> but we already have tags for grouping.  Maybe it's sub-types, but I had
> previously asked, and received a vague answer that could be interpreted
> as "no".
> 
>   Maybe examples could help, rather than saying "type type type type" ?

Look at RFC 2548, in particular the MS-CHAP*-Response, MS-CHAP-CPW-?, etc.
attributes.  Those are perfect examples of what cannot be done with Extended
Attributes as currently defined.  

> 
>   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/>