I suppose this makes some sense.
>2. Make the information available via RADIUS. Vendor-specific for now,
> but this is basically an oversight in RADIUS itself, so it should
> be brought up for standardization.
Not likely.
1. You'd have to convince people this was needed. Frankly this is the first
any only time I have *ever* seen this asked for.
2. The WG is trying to *shut down* as fast as possible. RADIUS is basically
done. They are in the process of tying up lose ends, but the intent is that
the current drafts (well, with corrections, there were some gaffs) will be it.
Once everything is published the WG will be no more. Their mission is
complete by the charter.
Personally I think this is frivolous information that would just be
clutter and I would argue against adding this to RADIUS in the WG. There
are a LOT of things that *could* be added, but aren't worth cluttering the
protocol any more. *IF* there were sufficient demand (which I don't ever
expect there to be), then *maybe* a VSA. To add it to the standard would
mean enough demand across vendors. Remember, even if it is added if not
enough implementations exist when it goes to Standard than it MUST be removed
from the standard. Those are IETF rules.
-MZ
-- -=*X I'm going down... under that is! <URL:http://www.aussie-isp.net/> X*=- <URL:mailto:megazone@megazone.org> Gweep, Discordian, Author, Engineer, me.. Join ISP/C Internet Service Providers' Consortium <URL:http://www.ispc.org/> "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 781-788-0130 <URL:http://www.megazone.org/> <URL:http://www.gweep.net/> Hail Discordia! - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message. Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>