Subject: [AAA-DOCTORS] Nitpick on RFC 6572

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:14:08 -0500

I was just using the latest RFCs to update the dictionaries and
noticed some text in RFC 6572:

4.12.  PMIP6-Home-IPv4-HoA
...

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |     Reserved      |Prefix-Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Home IPv4 HoA                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...

  Section 4.13 has a similar attribute.  Neither one follows the RFC
6158 recommendation of using standard RADIUS data types.

  Do these attributes meet the "Complex Data Type Exceptions" standard
of RFC 6158, Section 3.2.4?  Or the checklist in Appendix A?

  Alan DeKok.