Comments on the draft-ietf-radext-filter-04 or.. -05

[<jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com>]

Hi All,

I just reviewed the latest version of the draft. It looks ok to me
and I don't have much to add to Pasi's and Alan's notes that got
posted earlier.

Just a small note/question regarding the text stating Filter-ID and
NAS-Filter-Rule must not appear in the same message. I don't see
this kind of "must" restriction on Diameter side (RFC4005) so why
should RADIUS have it? So e.g. in section 2 would
  "..attributes, and SHOULD NOT appear in the same RADIUS packet."
be better? Also it is not entirely clear to me why e.g. Filter-Id
and NAS-Filter-Rule must be mutually exclusive? This was questioned
by some organizations that intend to use NAS-Filter-Rule. I guess
defining rule applying order would also be alternative..?  

/Jouni

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>