On 8 Nov 2011, at 14:34, Alan DeKok wrote:
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>" },
Hmm, no, i'd rather have something directly tied to the value seeing as multiple values can be encoded, and i'd rather have roughly similar formats for request and response... What about: "<attribute>":{ "value":[[<value>,<tag>],<value>,[<value>,<tag>]] } I don't see that there's any other possible use for nested arrays in the value key? -Arran Arran Cudbard-Bell a.cudbardb@networkradius.com Technical consultant and solutions architect 15 Ave. du Granier, Meylan, France +33 4 69 66 54 50