Possible feature(tte) for eapol_test

[Alan DeKok]

On Jul 25, 2023, at 8:51 AM, Stefan Paetow (OpenSource) <oss at eons.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> So, I'm thinking of adding it either as an extension (i.e. extending
> syntax from s, d, and x, to s, d, x, and v) or as a separate switch
> (-V) altogether. Given that the functionality would simply take the
> value portion to dig out the vendor enterprise number, its attr_id,
> syntax and the value and reuse most of the existing stuff, I'm
> wondering which Jouni and the people at large in this group would
> prefer.

  RFC 6929 defines an OID syntax for attributes.  https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6929.html#section-2.7.2

> For example, send the VSA of 'Cisco-AVPair="foo=bar"'.
> 
> Existing approach:
> 
> -N 26:x:000000090109666f6f3d626172

  I would suggest:

-N 26.9.1:s:foo=bar

  There needs to be special handling for 26, that the next field is a 32-bit vendor ID.

  But after that, the code could assume that "-N ...n.m..." is just a TLV "n" with sub-TLV "m", in 8-bit form.   That would cover the bulk of the VSAs.

  It should arguably still allow

	-N 26:x:...

  Alan DeKok.