[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
- To: "'Frank Quick'" <email@example.com>, "'W. Mark Townsley'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
- From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:26:51 -0800
- Cc: "'Jari Arkko'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Nelson, David'" <email@example.com>, "'Barney Wolff'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Avi Lior'" <email@example.com>, "'Thomas Narten'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Carroll, Christopher P.'" <Ccarroll@ropesgray.com>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Frank Quick <mailto:email@example.com> supposedly scribbled:
> I expect many of the participants in this thread are busy at IETF,
> but I will continue it anyway, expecting delays in some responses.
> Looking at 2865 and 2869 this weekend: I could not find any
> statement in 2865 that says the client MUST drop the connection
> an Access-Reject is received. Perhaps this is something that was
> articulated later?
IIRC, it was something that was taken as obvious from the name of
> In 2869, furthermore, there is a Password-Retry attribute whose
> purpose is:
> This attribute MAY be included in an Access-Reject to
> how many authentication attempts a user may be allowed to
> attempt before being disconnected.
> I don't see how this is fundamentally different from what we do in
I think that this is an error in 2869, and itself a violation of
2865. All RFCs are not created equal: 2869 is Informational, while
2865 is a Proposed Standard & as such must take precedence.
However, you are right that 2865 does not explicitly say that the
connection must be dropped, it merely assumes that that is the only
reasonable course of action. I agree with that assumption,
obviously, since otherwise the semantics of the Access-Reject
message are up for grabs.
> If there is no explicit requirement in 2865, then the proposed
> disclaimer language would be in error, since the only 2865
> noncompliance would be with the prohibition of VSA in
> Frank Quick
> office +1-858-658-3608 fax +1-858-651-1940
> portable +1-619-890-5749
> paging firstname.lastname@example.org
> RSA: 29EA D619 31F2 B4D3 8815 3D59 4340 FA43
> D-H: 2A24 131C D38F 12E6 4D6A 46EE 8BBF B50A 754E F63D
Hope this helps,
Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by
listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.