Re: Draft of extensions format

[Peter Deacon <peterd@iea-software.com>]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Alan DeKok wrote:

> > We are already set to run out of attribute space once.  For that reason
> > allocating additional space on the same order could possibly lead to the
> > same problems in the future.

>  We've taken 13 years to assign about ~140 attributes.  This works out
> to ~11 attributes per year.  Even if we allocate attributes 4x as
> quickly, (~45 per year), the ~1500 new attributes should allow for about
> 33 years of progress.  At 10x the historical rate, we will have ~14
> years of progress.
>  Do you expect the 1500 attributes to be exhausted within 5 years?

I agree with you in that it is unlikely.  Personally I would be surprised 
if we ever run out of standard attributes.  It seems organizations are 
more likely to go the route of VSAs (DSL Forum, wimax, 3gpp..et al).  I'm 
not very good at predicting the future so I try not to.

>  That would permit "old" style attributes to be encapsulated in the
> "new" style attributes.  (Even if it was forbidden, the encoding would
> allow for it.)

>  In contrast, our document solves the conflict by proposing a new
> *naming* mechanism.  There is no conflict between "new" attribute "1",
> and "old" attribute "1".  This is because the new attribute is defined
> within the context of the encapsulation layer: the "old" attribute ID.

The underlying question for me: Is this just a solution in search of a 
problem?  With my recommendation the same underlying goal is met and the 
dot naming exercise is unnecessary.

regards,
Peter

--
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/>