[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Potential work items
Just to be clear...In the subtype discussions that I was involved with and
in the current I-Ds that use them, Nobody requires changes to the
Nobody is introducing a new type.
I really don't see what the all the fuss is about.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 3:47 PM
> To: Mike Bean; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: Potential work items
> Mike Bean writes...
> > We have code in our RADIUS server that parses many
> structured RADIUS
> > attribute types, some RFC, most VSA.
> VSAs are fine... for what VSAs were intended for. I have
> worked on RADIUS Servers that parsed VSAs, too.
> > I understand that this group does not want to add new
> attribute types
> > the RADIUS standard; however, since 3GPP2 standards have
> been adopted
> > require RADIUS support for sub-type values, it may be
> helpful to write
> > informational RFC that describes the use of sub-types in a RADIUS
> > attribute.
> IMHO, it is unfortunate if 3GPP2 has standardized use of
> RADIUS attributes that substantially "bend" the well-accepted
> RADIUS architecture. Having done so, the debate is over how
> to "promote" these VSAs into some form of standards or
> multi-vendor status. Like it or not, the standard RADIUS
> attribute space is "flat".
> > Perhaps IS-835 and IS-878 can be changed to flatten these sub-type
> > attributes into separate attributes.
> That would probably be my preference, but I haven't seen the
> documents you reference.
> > My concern is it may be too late...
> Too late because the implementers have shipped product and
> don't want to go back and re-implement, in an effort to move
> into an IETF standards-based arena? I've heard the argument
> that the closure of the IETF RADIUS WG created an "open
> season" for other SDOs to revise the RADIUS architecture, but
> I just don't buy it.
> > ...providing additional information on how sub-type attributes are
> > can only help developers.
> Help developers to continue to "make the same mistakes"?
> Sorry for what might be perceived as a cheap shot, but IMHO
> use of sub-types in non-VSA attributes is a mistake.
> > I suspect most vendors supporting 3GPP2 in their
> > RADIUS server have already written code to support at least the
> display of
> > sub-type attributes. My two cents.
> I suppose you are correct. Is this a case of the de-facto
> standard forcing the hand of the de-jure standard development?
> Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I don't know
> how this will come out, but having more concrete data helps.
> -- Dave
> to unsubscribe send a message to
> email@example.com with the word 'unsubscribe' in
> a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.