|
> > Also, the use of SHOULD NOT implies that there are circumstances in which > > protocol changes or new commands can be standardized outside the IETF. Is > > this what was intended? > > No. We can change this to a MUST NOT. > > > Since [EXTEN] defines extensions to the standard RADIUS attribute > > space and this section is talking about VSAs, the reference is a bit > > confusing. Is the intent to suggest that VSAs other than type 0 > > can also use the [EXTEN] format? > > Yes. You might say, "with a different vendor-type" to make that clear. > RFC 2869, Section 5.19 (Table of Attributes) indicates that > Connect-Info is permitted in Access-Request packets. Admins would like > to use this information to perform policy checks. OK. The question still remains, though. If an attribute is only used in Accounting-Request packets, does the argument against complex attributes still apply? |