[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: inconsistency in RFC 5176
Bernard Aboba <> scribbled on Friday, February 15, 2008 6:07 AM:
> There is no contradiction here. Section 3.5 says:
> "Values 200-299 represent successful completion, so that these
> values may only be sent within CoA-ACK or Disconnect-ACK packets and
> MUST NOT be sent within a CoA-NAK or Disconnect-NAK packet."
> There are only two values in the range 200-299 which are defined:
> 201 Residual Session Context Removed
> 202 Invalid EAP Packet (Ignored)
> Error 202 is explicitly prohibited for use by RFC 5176
> "Invalid EAP Packet (Ignored)" is a non-fatal error that MUST
> NOT be sent by implementations of this specification.
> Error 201 is also not currently defined for use with RFC 5176 since
> it refers to removal of key context, not modification or
> disconnection of sessions.
> Therefore, Section 3.5 and 3.6 are in agreement.
Thanks, Bernard, I was just about to respond in that very fashion,
except that the table headed "Disconnect Messages" in section 3.6
completely disallows the use of the Error-Cause Attribute in
Disconnect-ACK messages, while section 3.5 says;
"Residual Session Context Removed" is sent in response to a
Disconnect-Request if one or more user sessions are no longer
active, but residual session context was found and successfully
removed. This value is only sent within a Disconnect-ACK and MUST
NOT be sent within a CoA-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, or CoA-NAK.
It seems that the table is in error to me. BTW, I can't find anything
in the document that says that Error 201 is currently undefined; what am
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.