Sam Hartman wrote: > So, I think we're better off with an existing registry provided that we > can get things we need registered in it. I think it's not a huge deal to > go do our own registry if we need to; doing so probably makes > implementation more messy on the AAA server especially, but is not > impossible.
If the CB data has value to AAA *outside* of the context of channel binding, then there are likely already AVPs defined for it in AAA protocols. Or, it will be useful to define new AVPs. If the CB data does *not* have value to AAA outside of the context of channel bindings, then using a namespace (and AVP format) specific to CB is the best approach. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
