8 Nov
2011
8 Nov
'11
8:34 a.m.
Phil Mayers wrote:
I'll note this syntax doesn't preserve the original inter-attribute ordering in the packet
RFC 2865 mandates that inter-attribute order doesn't matter.
(though I assume it will preserve intra-attribute ordering).
Yes. RFC 2865 mandates that intra-attribute ordering is preserved.
Whether this matters or not, I don't know (but what about tagged/group attrs?)
Tags could be another field in an "attribute" struct. But semantically, attributes with the same tag are grouped together. Tags are really an atrocious hack. My $0.02 is to represent them as fields in an attribute: "<attribute>":{ type:"<type>", value:[<values>] tag:"<integer>" }, Alan DeKok.