Re: [Softwires] 6rd RADIUS attribute

Hi, Stefan,

Thanks for your information. Since we are not really radius experts, if you can suggested the specific format or modification we should make in the draft, it would be real appreciated.

Best regards,

Sheng
________________________________________
From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [softwires-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Stefan Winter [stefan.winter@restena.lu]
Sent: 14 November 2011 17:56
To: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: [Softwires] 6rd RADIUS attribute - grouped attributes

Hello softwires,

this is to let you know of recent developments in the radext working
group: there's a draft draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions (-02) that
describes new attribute formats.

Among them is a data type "TLV" which is container for sub-attributes.

Looking at the 6rd-radius-attributes draft, I read the statement in 4.1:
  "Given that RADIUS currently has no
   recommended way of grouping multiple attributes, the below design
   appears to be a reasonable compromise."

See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-02

The radius-extensions document already had a WGLC (currently resolving
comments). You might want to reconsider your usage of a complex
attribute encoding and use a (cleaner) TLV-with-subattributes approach
instead.

You should consider it especially because an existing BCP RFC makes
clear that complex attribute encodings shouldn't be used if a viable
alternative exists (RFC6158).

Greetings,

Stefan Winter
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Re: [Softwires] 6rd RADIUS attribute - grouped attributes