Standardised JSON VP list format

Arran Cudbard-Bell a.cudbardb at
Tue Nov 8 15:04:23 CET 2011

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:


I don't see that there's any other possible use for nested arrays in the value key?


Arran Cudbard-Bell
a.cudbardb at

Technical consultant and solutions architect

15 Ave. du Granier, Meylan, France
+33 4 69 66 54 50

More information about the Freeradius-Devel mailing list