Issue: Data Type Advice

[Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>]

Issue: Data Type Advice
Submitter name:  Bernard Aboba
Submitter email address: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
Date first submitted: December 30, 2008 
Reference: 
Document:  GUIDELINES
Comment type: Technical
Priority:  S
Section:  Appendix A.1.1
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

Section A.1.1 reads:

   Does the data fit within the existing RADIUS data model, as outlined
   below?  If so, it SHOULD be encapsulated in a [RFC2865] format RADIUS
   attribute, or in a [RFC2865] format RADIUS VSA.

As noted in an earlier issue, Appendix B does not cover data types utilized within RADIUS VSAs,
only the data types in standard RADIUS attributes.   Therefore the "existing RADIUS data model
as outlined below" is really just the data model for standard RADIUS attributes.   On that basis
the sentence might better read:

   Does the data fit within the RADIUS standard attribute data model, as outlined
   below?  If so, it MAY be encapsulated either in a [RFC2865] format RADIUS
   attribute, or in a [RFC2865] format RADIUS VSA.

Assuming that the promised survey of ad-hoc data model extensions is actually included in the
document, then this could be referenced to in a subsequent sentence:

   Does the data fit utilize ad-hoc extensions to the RADIUS data model, as outlined
   in below?  If so, it SHOULD be encapsulated in a RADIUS VSA or an Extended
   Attribute [EXTENDED].  

Given this, it would appear that Section A.1.1 is recommending that RADIUS VSAs only