[radext] #49: B.10

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

#49: B.10
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  bernard_aboba@â               |       Owner:            
     Type:  defect                        |      Status:  new       
 Priority:  critical                      |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  design                        |     Version:  1.0       
 Severity:  Waiting for Shepherd Writeup  |    Keywords:            
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 B.9. Digest-*

    [RFC5090] attempts to standardize the functionality provided by an
    expired internet-draft [AAA-SIP] which improperly used two attributes
    from the standard space without being assigned them by IANA.  This
    self-allocation is forbidden, as described above in Section 1.3 and
    in Section 2.  In addition, the draft uses nested attributes, which
    are discouraged in Section 2.1.  The updated document uses basic data
    types, and allocates nearly 20 attributes in the process.

    However, the draft has seen wide-spread implementation, where
    [RFC5090] has not.  While there are a number of factors involved, one
    factor may be that implementors disagreed with the trade-offs made in
    the updated specification.  It may have been better to simply
    document the existing format, and request IANA allocation of two
    attributes.  The resulting design would have used nested attributes,
    but may have gained more wide-spread implementation.

    It is difficult to know which choice is optimal.  Given the
    complexity of the protocols and implementations, it is impossible to
    define "hard and fast" rules for RADIUS design guidelines.

 [BA] There is already a section B.9.  This section should therefore be
 renumbered as "B.10".  The recommended text is as follows:

 B.10. Digest-*

    [RFC5090] attempts to standardize the functionality provided by an
    expired internet-draft [AAA-SIP] which improperly used two attributes
    from the standard space without being assigned them by IANA.  This
    self-allocation is forbidden, as described above in Section 2.
    In addition, the draft uses nested attributes, which
    are discouraged in Section 2.1.  The updated document uses basic data
    types, and allocates nearly 20 attributes in the process.

    However, the draft has seen wide-spread implementation, where
    [RFC5090] has not.  One explanation may be that implementors
    disagreed with the trade-offs made in the updated specification.
    It may have been better to simply document the existing format, and
    request IANA allocation of two attributes.  The resulting design
    would have used nested attributes, but may have gained more
    wide-spread implementation.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/49>
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/>