Hi, Stefan, Thanks for your information. Since we are not really radius experts, if you can suggested the specific format or modification we should make in the draft, it would be real appreciated.
Best regards, Sheng ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Stefan Winter [[email protected]] Sent: 14 November 2011 17:56 To: [email protected] Subject: [Softwires] 6rd RADIUS attribute - grouped attributes Hello softwires, this is to let you know of recent developments in the radext working group: there's a draft draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions (-02) that describes new attribute formats. Among them is a data type "TLV" which is container for sub-attributes. Looking at the 6rd-radius-attributes draft, I read the statement in 4.1: "Given that RADIUS currently has no recommended way of grouping multiple attributes, the below design appears to be a reasonable compromise." See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-02 The radius-extensions document already had a WGLC (currently resolving comments). You might want to reconsider your usage of a complex attribute encoding and use a (cleaner) TLV-with-subattributes approach instead. You should consider it especially because an existing BCP RFC makes clear that complex attribute encodings shouldn't be used if a viable alternative exists (RFC6158). Greetings, Stefan Winter _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
