[radext] #16: Diameter and IANA considerations

["radext issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org>]

#16: Diameter and IANA considerations
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  bernard_aboba@â            |       Owner:  bernard_aboba@â          
     Type:  defect                     |      Status:  new                      
 Priority:  major                      |   Milestone:  milestone1               
Component:  Extended                   |     Version:  1.0                      
 Severity:  Active WG Document         |    Keywords:                           
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Date first submitted: February 11, 2008
 Reference: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2008/msg00096.html

 1. Diameter Considerations.  There currently is no Diameter Considerations
 section. One issue that arises is how to map the Extended Attribute space
 into the Diameter attribute space.  Since Diameter AVP numbers have been
 assigned with codes >255,
 the mapping requires an offset to be added to RADIUS Extended Attribute
 codes. Off the top of my head, I am clear what this offset should be.

 Also, I think there is the issue of how the extended grouped attributes
 are mapped into grouped Diameter AVPs.

 2. IANA considerations.   The text in the current document is minimal, and
 I think there is room for considerably more discussion there. Given the
 potential differences in treatment of attributes
 within the VSA space and standard RADIUS attributes, I think that the IANA
 considerations should indicate that Extended Attributes should initially
 be allocated only on request.
 However, as the standard RADIUS attribute space is exhausted, there will
 eventually be no choice but to allocate out of the extended space.  The
 question is how attributes should be allocated.

 [Bernard Aboba]

 Issue #1 is now understood to relate to the mapping of RADIUS Extended
 Attributes to Diameter.  Issue 290 has been opened relating to this
 problem, and Issue 278 also relates to it.  So this portion of the Issue
 can be considered a duplicate.

 Issue #2 remains open.  In particular, the document needs to clarify
 whether Extended Attributes can be allocated prior to exhaustion of the
 RADIUS attribute space (which seems likely), and also whether it will be
 possible to request allocation of a RADIUS standard attribute after
 exhaustion.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/16>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>


--
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/>