Issue 42: Are the AVPs really "M"andatory in IEEE 802 draft

[Nagi Reddy Jonnala <Nagi_Reddy.Jonnala@alcatel.be>]

Issue 42:
Description of issue: Are the AVPs really "M"andatory in IEEE 802 draft
Submitter name: Nagi Reddy Jonnala
Submitter email address: nagi_reddy.jonnala@alcatel.be
Date first submitted: Dec-14-2003
Reference:
Document: IEEE 802 extensions, Any other draft??
Comment type: T
Priority: 1
Section: Most of the AVPs have "M" bit enabled
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

All the AVPs have the "M" bit enabled which means that the  NAS MUST
understand the given attribute. I disagree with this. Having the default
value/action incase the RADIUS server doesn't return is already in
practice(for example locally configured interim interval, session
timeout). It is also true with some/all of the attributes mentioned in
this draft.  For instance, understanding Egress-VLANID should never be
madatory because the system might already have a default allowed set of
VLANIDs.

Requested change:

First alternative is:

Use the idea suggested by Bernard to advertise the Capabilities of "new"
attributes in Access-Request and I like this idea.

Second alternative is:

Don't make the AVP mandatory always. Let the RADIUS server(or
implementation) decide whether to enable/disable the "M" bit.





--
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/>