Subject: [radext] Q on RFC6158

From: Leaf yeh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:23:11 +0000

The following might be Editorial Errata against RFC6158.

Section 2.1, Original Text: 

Note that the length limitations for VSAs of type String and Text are
less than 253 octets, due to the additional overhead of the Vendor-
Specific encoding.

Corrected Text -1 might be: 

'Note that the length limitations for VSAs of type String and Text are
less than 247 octets, due to the additional overhead of the Vendor-
Specific encoding.' 

If it complies with the text, 'For [RFC2865] RADIUS VSAs, the length limitation of the String and
Text types is 247 octets instead of 253 octets, due to the additional
overhead of the Vendor-Specific Attribute.', in section 3.2.1 of RFC6158.

Corrected Text -2 might be:

'Note that the length limitations for VSAs of type String and Text are
less than 249 octets, due to the additional overhead of the Vendor-
Specific encoding.'

If it complies with the definition of VAS in section 5.26 of RFC2865.

Corrected Text -3 might be:

'Note that the length limitations for VSAs of type String and Text are
less than 248 octets, due to the additional overhead of the Vendor-
Specific encoding.'

If it adopts the format meaningfully in the section of 4.1 of draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-04.txt.

Right? 

Best Regards,
Leaf
_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext