RE: Question regarding draft-ietf-radext-design-05.txt

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

Greg Weber writes...

> ...I'd like to remind that the original submission of the 
> Design Guidelines was back in July '05...

True enough.  As I've said very recently, the debate over complex attributes
dates all the way back to the chartering of RADEXT.

> And the SDOs have business issues that must be addressed in
> a more timely fashion.

This is more an issue of style that substance.  The work could easily have
been done in "classic" RADIUS attributes, albeit less elegantly.  There's a
school of AAA design style that wants to encapsulate the complex C-language
(or similar) "structs" that are used in the client and server code into
RADIUS attributes, as if RADIUS were some form of RPC mechanism.  :-)  The
debate is about whether or not that's a good idea.  It's certainly a valid
design approach -- the question is whether or not it fits well within
RADIUS.  If you view RADIUS as little more that a convenient transport for
application data, maybe it does.


--
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/>