[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FW: [Fwd: Question regarding draft-ietf-radext-design-05.txt.]
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> Yes. Some RADIUS servers also support complex attribute
>> decoding through simple scripting languages. But this has not
>> been historically wide-spread.
> These assumptions have been built-into the draft and it would be good to be
> explicit what type of RADIUS server you are talking about when you argue
> that complex attributes lead to implementation, deployment and security
> problems. This may very well be true be true for some of these servers but
> certainly not true for many others. Maybe these older servers don't even
> care about the functionality we are specifying today.
That's a good point.
Can you suggest updated text for the draft?
> My immediate suggestion: Don't put a RADIUS / Diameter compatibility
> considerations section into the document as it is almost always wrong.
I'll have to ask the chairs about this...
>> "Can lead ...". The text is describing common practices and
>> deployments. The only reason to change the text is if those
>> practices are not, in fact, in common use.
> But these type of statements are used against draft authors who decided to
> pick a different format and then we have all these discussions.
> I think it would be useful to provide a bit more context, as argued a few
> paragraphs above.
Ok. We should be able to make it clearer that the opinions against
complex attributes are SHOULD NOT.
>>>> Btw, has the draft been sent to other SDOs for review?
> Almost all the major SDOs have to deal with RADIUS in some form:
> Wimax Forum, Broadband Forum, 3GPP, 3GPP2, CableLabs
I think the chairs should ask for official statements from the other SDOs.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.