RE: Issue 290

["D. B. Nelson" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>]

> Issue 290 -- This relates to the issue of Diameter support for 
> non-standard VSA formats (which this document now uses).   During IETF 73,
> we discussed one potential avenue for addressing this, which would be
> to update RFC 4005 to enable use of Diameter AVP 26 for translation of
> RADIUS VSAs of non-standard type.

Would that be a RADEXT or DIME work item?

There is a larger issue here, currently being discussed as part of the
RADIUS Design Guidelines commentary.  That issue revolves around the use of
complex / structured data in the value field of attributes, i.e. the V of
the TLV.  I think we need to nail down that issue before we can effectively
close on the Design Guidelines and Extended Attributes drafts, as well as
recommended practice for Diameter Compatibility and the related text that
should accompany the definition of new RADIUS [Extended] Attributes.  There
was discussion of this issue in the RADEXT and DIME WG meetings at IETF-73
and in the AAA Doctors lunch meeting.  Amazingly, this "larger issue" topic
has been hotly debated, on and off, as far back as the original discussion
on chartering RADEXT, back around time of IETF-56 (or so)!

I'll pick that discussion up in another thread.

Suffice it to say that the "consensus of record" of the RADEXT WG on this
issue does not address the interests and concerns of a handful of
individuals, who continue to make a case for more robust and rich
functionality regarding complex / structured attributes.



--
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/>