RE: IPv6 Address Option

["MILES DAVID" <David.Miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au>]

Hi Bernard,

My email was simply an opportunity to prompt continued discussions from
Stockholm (things had been somewhat quiet).

To the question of tagged AVP,  your suggested rewording of
radext-design-07 :

For these reasons, the tagging scheme described in RFC 2868 is
   not suitable for use as a generic grouping mechanism.  Where
   a tagging scheme is required for use with arbitrary data types,
   it is RECOMMENDED that:
      
        * A fixed tagging field be used so as to remove potential
          interoperability issues associated with determining whether
          an optional tag is present; 

        * The design make no assumption about the content of the
          data within tagged attributes."  

to require new AVP which implement tagged values must treat them as a
fixed/mandatory is to me the best approach _if_ it is decided that these
AVP should not fall under the guidelines of radext-extended-attributes.
My opinion is that radext-design-07 should be updated to include the
proposed text above. After that modification I believe the current text
in ipv6-access-01 around tags:

The Tag field is mandatory.  The Tag
      field values are greater than 0x00.

 Is sufficient to allow the adoption of this draft.

I see no other outstanding issues in the minutes or on the RADEXT issues
list for draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access. Should I post your proposed
text as an issue to the list for tracking?


Cheers,

-David





--
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/>