|
David Nelson said: > In seeking to debunk some of these data model additions, you are apparently > attempting to build a case for the precedence of using the RADIUS String > data type to contain non-self-describing data structures. This has been a > point of debate in the RADEXT WG for several years. The WG consensus is > captured in the Design Guidelines draft. The String data type should be > used for actual strings, or for opaque blobs of binary data, for use in some > other protocol component, e.g. EAP. There are specific exemptions to this > recommendation that are spelled out in the draft. In many ways, this argument has long been Overtaken By Events (OBE). RADIUS is what it is, and very widely deployed protocol. The Design Guidelines only attempts to describe RADIUS as it is, not what it should become. The job of defining what RADIUS could become is the task of the Extended Attributes document. Given that all IESG DISCUSSes have been cleared, it's now time for the WG to get past these (largely irrelevant) arguments and move on. |