[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Request for Review: "Issues and Fixes" changes -- Call-Check.
Alan DeKok writes...
> Maybe we want to change that to "... Call Check MAY NOT contain
> a State attribute". This permits them to (magically) have one
> if they so desire. It permits them to not have one in real-life
"MAY NOT" is not a keyword defined in RFC 2119. I would avoid using it. I
think you want to say something like:
"Access-Request messages containing a Service-Type attribute with a value of
Call Check SHOULD NOT contain a State attribute."
You might go on to say:
"The standard use case for Call-Check is pre-screening authentication based
solely on the phone number information in Calling-Station-ID and optionally
Called-Station-ID. In that use case there is no source of the State
attribute in the NAS. Other, non-standard, uses of Call-Check may require
or permit the use of a State Attribute, but are beyond the scope of this
> This permits them to (magically) have one if they so
> desire. It permits them to not have one in real-life
The text I suggest here does the same. It just makes the usage conditions a
bit more explicit, which I think is desirable.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.