Re: FW: [Fwd: Question regarding draft-ietf-radext-design-05.txt.]

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>  Yes.  Some RADIUS servers also support complex attribute 
>> decoding through simple scripting languages.  But this has not 
>> been historically wide-spread.
> 
> These assumptions have been built-into the draft and it would be good to be
> explicit what type of RADIUS server you are talking about when you argue
> that complex attributes lead to implementation, deployment and security
> problems. This may very well be true be true for some of these servers but
> certainly not true for many others. Maybe these older servers don't even
> care about the functionality we are specifying today. 

  That's a good point.

  Can you suggest updated text for the draft?

> My immediate suggestion: Don't put a RADIUS / Diameter compatibility
> considerations section into the document as it is almost always wrong. 

  I'll have to ask the chairs about this...

>> "Can lead ...".  The text is describing common practices and 
>> deployments.  The only reason to change the text is if those 
>> practices are not, in fact, in common use.
> 
> But these type of statements are used against draft authors who decided to
> pick a different format and then we have all these discussions. 
> 
> I think it would be useful to provide a bit more context, as argued a few
> paragraphs above. 

  Ok.  We should be able to make it clearer that the opinions against
complex attributes are SHOULD NOT.

>>>> Btw, has the draft been sent to other SDOs for review?
>>  Suggestions?
> Almost all the major SDOs have to deal with RADIUS in some form:
> Wimax Forum, Broadband Forum, 3GPP, 3GPP2, CableLabs

  I think the chairs should ask for official statements from the other SDOs.

  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/>