Re: Last call on extensions document?

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

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Alan DeKok wrote:

> > Use of naming services to abstract network addresses is universal.  Kind
> > of the whole point of using these systems in the first place.

>  What I meant was that *unexpected* changes are a problem.  DNS is
> nice, and useful for many things.  RADIUS policies are usually
> relatively fixed.  Having them depend on DNS means that a non-RADIUS
> admin can effectively update the RADIUS policies.

>  I've seen this cause problems in practice, which makes me wary of it.

By specifying a name you delegate responsibility for resolution to the 
naming service.  This is always the case no matter where that name is 
stored.

> > Without combo IP the system needs *extra* intelligence to know the IPv4
> > and IPv6 analogue for each attribute.  With combo IP this is unnecessary
> > as the same attribute can be used and the system just works.

>  The main way I can see combo IP being useful is if family-specific
> attributes were to be deprecated.

>  Unless there's a groundswell of support for it on this list, I don't
> see combo-IP making it into the document.

This was never my intention.  My intention was a couple of paragraphs to 
explain a new data type attribute designers may want to take advantage of 
for their *future* work while implementing new attributes in the new 
attribute space.

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/>