Re: [radext] Status of extensions document?

On Dec 24, 2011, at 7:58, "Alan DeKok" <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:

> Dave Nelson wrote:
>> What's the purpose of this?  To preclude any additional "classic" RADIUS
>> attributes from being defined?
> 
>  Not to preclude, but to deprecate them.  The goal is to use the new
> attributes where possible.

Deprecation of a registry is not defined in RFC 5226, so it's not clear how IANA can carry that out in practice.

> 
>> I thought the consensus was to prvide
>> guidance on when to use "classic" attributes and when to use "extended"
>> attributes.
> 
>  The document does that.
> 
>> Theare a any number of applications asn uses cases that I
>> can Imagine whnere a sinple "classic" RADIUS attribute works just fine,
>> so long as the number space lasts.  Why force the issue?
> 
>  If we don't suggest that documents use the new format, they won't.
> Deprecating the old space gives incentive to use the new space.
> 
>  Again, the document doesn't *prevent* use of the old space.  It just
> suggests that there are few reasons for using it.

Since this draft doesn't update RFC 3575, it can be argued that no changes are made to legacy allocations.  However, the request for deprecation will create confusion. 

> 
>  Alan DeKok.
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext