Glen Zorn wrote: > This document is 36 pages long, yet devotes only a single paragraph to the > use of extended RADIUS attributes. The goal was to finish the design document significantly before the extended attributes document was finished. Due to normal WG issues, this didn't happen. > Since the extended attribute set is > likely the one to be most used in the future, this seems a rather gross > oversight. The extended attributes document is referenced from the guidelines document. It suggests that designs not meeting the criteria of the guidelines document use the practices documented in the extended attributes document. > I would suggest that the authors try to design a few extended > attribute sets and then document that experience. How does this help the guidelines document? The extended attributes document meets WG consensus, and follows the traditional RADIUS data model for attributes. It would seem that everyone agrees that the specification it proposes is satisfactory, and meets their needs. > I mention this at this > late date because I expected this note to become an RFC long before the > extended attributes doc, but (FWIW) the latter has completed WG "Last" > Call... The guidelines document has seen multiple last calls, with last-minute comments at each one. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf