d.b.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Yeah. I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the "security > > functionality" escape clause in the RADIUS Design Guidelines draft. > > Lots of things can reasonably be claimed to be "security related". I > > would have preferred the exception to be crafted a bit narrower, just > > for this reason. But, unless wording of Design Guidelines is changed, > > you have a legitimate argument. > > I believe the intent was "related to RADIUS security". This statement puzzles me: section 2.1.3 of the design guidelines document says: As can be seen in Appendix B, most of the existing complex attributes involve authentication or security functionality. Supporting this functionality requires code changes on both the RADIUS client and server, regardless of the attribute format. As a result, in most cases, the use of complex attributes to represent these methods is acceptable, and does not create additional interoperability or deployment issues. But none of the Attributes mentioned in Appendix B have anything to do with RADIUS security as I understand it. Can you explain? > The guidelines > document could be updated to address this. > > RADIUS could transport parameters for *another* protocol. Like EAP? > Those > attributes are not security related. I see. What attributes (besides Message-Authenticator) are related to RADIUS security? > They either follow the RADIUS data > model (int, IP address, etc.), or they are "opaque data" that RADIUS is > simply transporting on the behalf of the other protocol. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf