Alan DeKok wrote:
Both the PKM-SS-Cert and PKM-CA-Cert attributes provide 'ad-hoc'
extension of the RADIUS attribute size, much like the EAP-Message
attribute. It would have been preferable to follow the extended
attribute format [2]. This provides a standardized way of carrying data
larger than a 253 bytes.
However, that document has not yet been published. My question is
that if there are no current implementations of the PKM specification,
it may be preferable to wait until the extended attributes document is
finished, and then to use that format.
To which I replied:
No. There _are_ implementations as I rather clearly stated at the meeting
in SF, using the Experimental attribute space.
To which he replied:
So the implementations have to be updated to use the IANA code points,
independent of them possibly using the extended attributes format.
To which I reply:
So it seems that what you _really_ meant was "If there are no current
implementations of the PKM specification,
it may be preferable to wait until the extended attributes document is
finished, and then to use that format but if there are current
implementations, well, screw 'em."
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf