Greg wrote... > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Weber (gdweber) [mailto:gdweber@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:59 PM > To: Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve) > Cc: Bernard Aboba; radiusext@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: Issue 111: Accounting <...unnecessary part of message trimmed...> > > > > In light that the treatment of accounting behavior would be best > > treated elsewhere, such as in 3576bis, I would suggest > > GDW> What happens if I have an HTTP redirect rule with > redir-cnt set to 10, and I send this rule in an Access-Accept > (i.e. no CoA in the picture). Wouldn't it be useful to get > an Accounting-Request when the redirection is removed > (redir-cnt goes to zero)? Assuming that situation is not > described in 3576bis, where would it be described? It's an interesting question best answered by those folks that wanted http redirection countdown in the first place (i.e. 3GPP2). I, for one, could go either way on this one. I can see how one could argue to add it in as a matter of completeness. However, if no one comes up with a meaningful use case, it does seem like a distraction. What would the accounting-request message contain? > > > that we omit any discussion of accounting behavior in this draft. > > This means that sections 1.4 would be modified and section > A.3 would > > be eliminated to remove accounting references. > > GDW> Would section 3, including the Acct-NAS-Traffic-Rule > attribute, also be removed? No, just the mention of accounting behavior in 1.4 and A.3. The accounting attribute would remain. I will note that Bernard raised issue 167 with similar concerns of accounting behavior and being compatible with RFC 2866 and RFC3576. In that discussion thread, it appears we are reaching consensus on leaving just a bit of description of accounting behavior in section 1.4. I suggest you review Bernard's proposed text for issue 167 and let us know whether you in agreement with the changes to section 1.4. I'm still open to removing section A.3. altogether (which issue 167 doesn't address at all). I still feel that something like 3576bis or the like is the best place to address questions about when to and when to generate accounting messages. MS
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature