IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: On issue 6: Avi review of I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-design-13.txt

Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> Thu, 03 June 2010 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C62928C0F7 for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.806
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.689, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id huuMbbba9BQA for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D494A3A689F for <radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 10:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>) id 1OKEas-000PG5-T9 for radiusext-data0@psg.com; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:52:38 +0000
Received: from [216.82.249.147] (helo=mail29.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>) id 1OKEap-000PFi-Vh for radiusext@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:52:36 +0000
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: avi@bridgewatersystems.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-29.messagelabs.com!1275587531!56744318!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [72.35.6.119]
Received: (qmail 25071 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2010 17:52:12 -0000
Received: from mail.bridgewatersystems.com (HELO webmail.bridgewatersystems.com) (72.35.6.119) by server-6.tower-29.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 3 Jun 2010 17:52:12 -0000
Received: from m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.148]) by m679t01.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.144]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:52:11 -0400
From: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
CC: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:52:10 -0400
Subject: Re: On issue 6: Avi review of I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-design-13.txt
Thread-Topic: On issue 6: Avi review of I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-design-13.txt
Thread-Index: AcsDRX1uXyb1FZE9TTGWUIOYHSSH5A==
Message-ID: <0089109D-5260-482B-B65B-DD7EF94A4076@bridgewatersystems.com>
References: <20100414121503.8200128C281@core3.amsl.com> <4BC5BB10.4080006@deployingradius.com>, <0b1001cadbf4$6631bfc0$32953f40$@com> <BLU137-W3272B8995285C2B99C9DF0930F0@phx.gbl> <4BC875D5.1060802@deployingradius.com> <7FDC2F64-EAC6-4E2E-A541-9AEF4BB22347@bridgewatersystems.com> <4C076FAB.2070001@deployingradius.com> <1957F063-9C44-43D4-9619-FAEA1681F828@bridgewatersystems.com> <4C07A571.6040004@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C07A571.6040004@deployingradius.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-exclaimer-md-config: f069778a-5a3c-4a57-aa01-0f5f3f2623e3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <radiusext.ops.ietf.org>

With which do you disagree when you say "No, it does not."
a) The above states that the approach taken by SDOs when working on their attributes was incompatible.
b) but as the document asserts SDOs dont have to be compatible with other SDOs.
c) Both of these statements

???


On 03-06-2010, at 08:52 , Alan DeKok wrote:

>>>> " These approaches are often incompatible, leading to
>>>>  additional complexity in RADIUS implementations."
>> 
>> The above states that the approach taken by SDOs when working on their attributes was incompatible - but as the document asserts SDOs dont have to be compatible with other SDOs.
> 
>  No, it does not.
> 
>  Alan DeKok.

Avi Lior
avi@bridgewatersystems.com
office: +1 613-591-9104x6417
    cell: +1 613-796-4183



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status