Re: Draft of extensions format

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Peter Deacon wrote:
> I agree with you in that it is unlikely.  Personally I would be
> surprised if we ever run out of standard attributes.

  The WG meeting looked into this at the last IETF.  The conclusion was
that at the current rate of allocation, we have 4-5 years.  Given that
it takes 4-5 years to publish a document, we need a solution now.

>  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.

  Some vendors have started running out of VSA space.  Having a solution
would be useful *now*.

> 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.

  The dot naming exercise *also* allows for naming and allocation of
nested TLVs.  Without it, a TLV "1" could be seen as being in conflict
with attribute "1".

  The document explains this, most notably in the "IANA Considerations"
section.

  Your solution has a problem (conflict) that this solution does not
have.  It provides for allocation of ~8K attributes which you say here
isn't necessary.  And even if it was necessary, our proposal can address
that problem, too.  If your solution allows for TLVs, a "dot naming"
scheme is *also* necessary for it, too.

  On the "plus" side, I don't see a lot of differences between the two
solutions.  On the "negative" side, there are issues with your proposal
that our document does not have.

  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/>