Re: Issue 298

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> So one question is whether this implies that a NAS should signal its
>> support for Extended Attributes in the Access-Request in some way -- 
>> so as to make it clear to the RADIUS server how those attributes would
>> be interpreted.  
> 
> I think we should make that feature a MUST.
> 
> [BA] That seems sensible to me.  The question is how to do it.  Maybe
> include
> an Extended Attribute of Type 1 with a NUL in it within an Access-Request?

  This gets dangerously close to the old "capabilities" argument.  But I
do agree it would seem to be necessary here.

  Q: What impact does this advertisement have on intermediary proxies?

  i.e. Does it signal that the NAS understands Extended-Attributes, or
that the proxy understands them?  Should the proxy filter out the
advertisement if it doesn't understand Extended-Attributes?

  To answer my own question a bit... it's easier to upgrade proxies than
NASes.  I think it's safe to assume (or require) that proxies be
upgraded before NASes.

  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/>