[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: questions on draft-mariblanca-aaa-eap-lla-00.txt
Well, I am not sure if I agree with all you say down there.
Isn't the "Proposal for an IETF extended attribute space" as Bernard sent out a few weeks ago, an attempt to extend the type space?
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
| Type | Length | Vendor-Id
Vendor-Id (cont) |M|R| Vendor type |
| Vendor length | Attribute-Specific...
I understand that the proposal also supports the need for sub-attributes (which by itself is an implicit way of saving attribute space?), but still...
So potentially (if you didn't have the legacy issue with EAP), you would want to have an "EAP attribute" with all the related info as sub-attributes, no?
The same goes with Farid's draft that suggests Mobile IP HA to be sent as a new attribute. I feel that Mobile IP may need a whole lot more info from the RADIUS server than just HA information. I will send another email about that to keep the threads separate, although thought process is similar.
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 1:09 AM
To: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; David Mariblanca (EE/EEM)
Subject: Re: questions on draft-mariblanca-aaa-eap-lla-00.txt
Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 wrote:
> I was just wondering how the new attribute datatypes discussions (a while ago) went on this list. I guess this is still part of the data model work.
I believe there is sufficient attribute space available to complete
all standards work currently on the table. The discussion about new
attribute formats and datatypes was related more to the unification of
vendor, SDO, and IETF spaces and datatypes than running out of
numbers for immediate needs.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.