Subject: Re: AD review of draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-04.txt

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:20:48 -0700

Alan DeKok wrote:

Both the PKM-SS-Cert and PKM-CA-Cert attributes provide 'ad-hoc' 
extension of the RADIUS attribute size, much like the EAP-Message 
attribute. It would have been preferable to follow the extended 
attribute format [2]. This provides a standardized way of carrying data 
larger than a 253 bytes. 

However, that document has not yet been published. My question is 
that if there are no current implementations of the PKM specification, 
it may be preferable to wait until the extended attributes document is 
finished, and then to use that format. 

To which I replied:

No. There _are_ implementations as I rather clearly stated at the meeting 
in SF, using the Experimental attribute space. 
 
To which he replied:

So the implementations have to be updated to use the IANA code points, 
independent of them possibly using the extended attributes format. 
 
To which I reply:

So it seems that what you _really_ meant was "If there are no current
implementations of the PKM specification, 
it may be preferable to wait until the extended attributes document is 
finished, and then to use that format but if there are current
implementations, well, screw 'em."

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:34:45 +0200

Glen Zorn wrote:
> Alan DeKok wrote:
> ... It would have been preferable ...

> To which I reply:
> 
> So it seems that what you _really_ meant was "... well, screw 'em."  

  I think there is a miscommunication here.

  Alan DeKok.