|
> It is intended to encourage SDO specifications that re-use existing > data types. These specifications should *not* need IETF review. > > Specifications that are SDO specific, and do *not* re-use existing > types are SDO specific, and do not need IETF review. > > Much of this is already in the document. What can we do to clarify > the text to avoid repeated questions? I'd suggest that a revision of Section 1.1 is needed to clarify this. Right now, this section seems to suggest that SDO specifications utilizing existing RADIUS standard data types can avail themselves of IETF review. Also, as David notes, the document can be read as suggesting IETF review of all SDO RADIUS attribute documents. > The most I would do is to provide horrific examples of what *not* to > do. i.e. putting arbitrary text strings into the "data" portion of a > VSA (no... no VSA-type/VSA-length/VSA-data... just Vendor-Id/text..) Describing why this is a bad idea would probably be useful. |