Re: Draft of extensions format

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Peter Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Peter Deacon wrote:
> 
>> 8.2.
>> The type tree does not provide guidance WRT how to form a vendor
>> specific identifier.  With the 8-bit field restriction there does not
>> seem to be a possible way that it could be used to label VSAs using
>> extension attributes.

  The VSA space is managed completely by the vendor.  We can offer
suggestions on the docuemnt, but vendors are free to do whatever they want.

> I was looking for a globally unique reference but I don't think this was
> the intention.. It would be kind of nice to have one identifier that
> would fully describe the attribute.

  Sure.  The same dotted-number notation could be used:

241.26.9.42
	241 - new attribute
	26  - VSA
	 9  - Cisco
	42  - some Cisco attribute.

> Perhaps consider carving an exception to 8-bit integers for VSAs spaces
> that are allowed to have their own vendor types so the naming scheme
> would work for existing VSAs with 16-bit types.

  There's no need to have an exception.  Vendors can do whatever they
want.  And the 8-bit integer limitation is *only* for IANA purposes.
The dotted number notation could be used for 16-bit VSAs, too:

26.4846.20106

	26    - VSA
	4846  - Lucent
	20106 - Modulation attribute

 Alan DeKok.

--
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/>