Re: FW: ISSUE: Inappropriate usage of RFC 2119 key words

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Glen Zorn wrote:
> Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@deployingradius.com] writes:
..
>>   I welcome suggestions for how implementations can *meaningfully*
>> interoperate when they have different interpretations for an attribute.
> 
> What, if anything, do you imagine that has to do with my comment?

  It's a complex logic chain, explained in my previous message.

  The suggestion that specifications SHOULD re-use existing data types
means that implementations can re-use those data types for new
specifications.  Since the data types are already inter-operable, adding
new attributes of the same data type means a high likelihood of
inter-operability.

  Or... we give up on the idea of data types (as has been insinuated
here), and new specs do whatever they want.  Since the old
implementations don't know about those new data types, they won't
implement them, and the systems won't be inter-operable.

  And to repeat: Yes, they will be able to exchange RADIUS packets.  No,
they will not be able to agree on the format, meaning, interpretations,
and processing requirements for attributes.

  e.g. An implementation that doesn't support Message-Authenticator
cannot be meaningfully said to be interoperable with another one that
requires Message-Authenticator for EAP sessions.

  RADIUS has had attribute interoperability problems for over a decade.
 Why are there still questions about it?

  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/>