Subject: Proposed Resolution of Issue 319: Accept in principle

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:26:23 -0700

This issue relates to the question of whether existing RADIUS RFCs have
defined the unsigned integer64

data type.   The contention is that attributes such as
ARAP-Challenge-Response (RFC 2869) were in fact

defined as 8 octet String attributes, not unsigned integer64.   Similarly,
the contention is that the

Interface-ID attribute was also not defined as an unsigned integer64.  

While the bar for making changes to the Design Guidelines document is very
high, this issue is one 

which could potentially result in an Errata being filed and approved. 

A proposed resolution to this issue is available below:

http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00546.html

The resolution of this question depends in part on an understanding of the
type of

the Interface-ID attribute.  Potential candidates (integer64 seems to have
been disqualified) include

8 octet String or Interface ID (variant of 8 octet String). 

Another sub-question that needs to be resolved is whether the implementation
advice given in the

document (for RADIUS implementations to support the unsigned integer 64 data
type) is justified

if it is determined that this data type is not in fact used by any existing
RADIUS attribute. 

If you have comments on the proposed resolution nor any of the
sub-questions, please post your

opinions to the list.