Subject: [radext] #52: Basic vs. Complex Attributes

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:31:17 -0000

#52: Basic vs. Complex Attributes
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  Hannes.Tschofenig@…        |       Owner:            
     Type:  defect                     |      Status:  new       
 Priority:  major                      |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  design                     |     Version:  1.0       
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document      |    Keywords:            
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 The line drawn between the basic and the complex data types is still
 arbitrarily, which leaves a bad taste behind.

 2) Inconsistent story

 To avoid complex attributes the document argues to split them. But then
 the document furthermore argues that the attribute code space is going to
 be exhausted pretty soon.

 The story from the RADEXT group, at least if I understood it correctly,
 was the extended attribute format, see http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc
 /draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes/. This would solve the "exhaustion"
 issue. However, it does not nicely fit in the story of basic vs. complex
 attributes since the extended attribute format is a complex attribute that
 by definition in the document has to be avoided at all cost (because of
 security vulnerabilities, etc.).

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/52>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>