[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Draft of extensions format
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Alan DeKok wrote:
Avi and I talked at the last IETF, and have had a number of follow-up
conversations since then. I've just submitted the resulting document.
At a high level, this document:
a) requests allocation of 6 "reserved" attributes
b) assigns 4 to a new format, which has one octet of "extended type"
TYPE LENGTH Extended-Type Value...
c) assigns 2 to a new format which allows for more than 252 octets
of data, using another octet for a "more" flag
Conceptually I like the extensions.
We are already set to run out of attribute space once. For that reason
allocating additional space on the same order could possibly lead to the
same problems in the future.
My recommendation is to use a single extensions attribute and make length
two bytes. Rob a couple of bits from the 16-bit length field for fragment
and possibly presence of an extra flags byte.
Finally reserve the lower region that overlaps with the current standard
attribute space so that there are no conflicts with attribute id
references. Thus sub attribute ID's would not be needed in this context.
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/>