[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Consensus call and conclusion of RADEXT WG last call on draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-00.txt
Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Two comments were received:
I have a review pending, too. But I'll add a few comments here.
> o The first bit is the Standard or 'S' flag. The Standard flag is
> set (1) if the TLV is a standard RADIUS attribute (as defined in
> RFC 2865, for example), otherwise it is clear (0).
That's just bad practice. With a 16-bit format, there's plenty of
room to leave the first 256 attributes as "old-style". A separate bit
to indicate this does nothing more than complicate things.
> o The next 2 octets are the Ext-Type field
See my earlier comments. If we're going to a 2-byte Ext-Type field,
then the Diameter AVP format is more flexible, powerful, and takes up
just as much space as this format.
> a. Do you support increasing the size of the Extended-Type field to two
> from one octet?
> b. Do you support use of the RADIUS Extended Type VSAs to encode standard
> RADIUS attributes?
My preferences for the format, in order of priority, are:
1) Extended format as in -00 of the draft
2) Diameter AVP format as in draft-wolff-radext-ext-attribute
3) anything else
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.