Re: 6rd attribute compromise?

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Peter Deacon wrote:
> As a compromise any thoughts about defining stand-ins for what are
> essentially TLVs to remove external dependencies?

  It's a good idea, I think.

> Upside future implementations supporting TLVs *may* be able to more
> broadly support the 6rd configuration attribute.
>
> Downside at least 7 more bytes for this attribute, more work to manage
> additional static fields.

  I'm not concerned about 7 bytes, and TLVs should make it easier to add
more fields.

  The extended attrs document says that TLV formats should not be used
for "normal" attributes.  That's only because it may be useful to group
all of the new features together.  That can be changed.

  An alternative approach would be to publish a "new data types" RFC,
containing just TLV and 64-bit integer data types.  It should be simple
enough that publication should be quick.

  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/>