[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: questions/comments on draft-black-radius-lanedge-00.txt


See the comment inline.

> > 3) The draft proposes a new Time attribute (along with Location-ID
> > and Location Name).  Why can't we use Event-TimeStamp define in RFC-2869
> > which is also in UTC format? Is there a specific reason to have a new
> attribute
> > defined here again?
> The Event-Timestamp of RFC-2869 is defined to be an Accounting-Request
> packet attribute.  Perhaps for standardization this attribute could be
> carried in either an Access-Request or an Accounting-Request packet?

<Nagi> RFC-3576 ( Dynamic authorization extensions) does recommend Event Time
Stamp to support replay detection. I believe the restriction is already lifted
for Disconnect and CoA messages.  Perhaps this is the right time to make the
attribute applicable to all messages.


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/>