[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Issue 272 resolution

Glen Zorn wrote:
>>> I was sure the idea was brought up on this list, too.  What was the
>>> result of that discussion?
>> The result of that discussion was not to go forward with it.
> 
> Just to refresh the memory, the idea in question was 'de-capsulating the
> contents of the MS-CHAP-* attributes into multiple attributes...e.g.
> MS-CHAP(foo=1, bar=2, ...)  3GPP does this, WiMAX does this'.

  That was the most recent recap of sub-TLV's.

>  As I pointed
> out in a previous message, both RFC 2865 VSAs and the current extended
> attribute draft also allow this, 

  No.

  There are multiple possible representations (TLV's, grouped
attributes, tags, etc) which can be semantically similar.  But the
representations are different, and are encapsulated differently.

> just in a (perhaps predictably) half-assed
> fashion:

  Which is what was agreed to after much discussion on this list.

> The latter approach, of course, forces the continued use
> of the so-called "complex" Attributes that Alan (?!) 

  The design guidelines document contains the results of WG consensus.

> while
> the former forces the receiver to grovel through the entire message to find
> the tagged attributes, check that all are present and check the validity of
> each instead of just checking the validity of a single attribute.

  I think everyone understands that.  And the consensus was to perform
the reviled grovelling.

>  I love
> this idea!  Certainly far better to accept it than tamper with WG Consensus
> (which apparently has become as holy as "backward compatibility" in this WG.

  Consensus was achieved after much discussion among people who
understood the consequences of their choices.  Deriding it as "holy"
implies that the decision was made either through blind faith, or by
people who didn't understand the consequences of their actions.

  I'm not an idiot, and I don't play one on TV.

> In any case, I'm not married to this solution; I've repeatedly requested
> suggestions for a solution to the problem but nobody else has brought any
> forward.  

  Nonsense.  There were multiple suggestions offered, including the one
you are re-proposing.  They were all rejected.  Some were rejected by you.

  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/>