RE: Possible issue for clarification -- RADIUS Accounting

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Barney Wolff <> supposedly scribbled:

> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 06:07:40PM -0500, Nelson, David wrote:
>> 
>> Since the purpose of the Interim-Update is to provide a snap-shot
of
>> the accounting statistics at that moment in time, I see no reason
why
>> the octet counts and session time attributes ought not to be
>> included. Is this potentially an erratum in RFC 2866? Or was
there a
>> good reason to omit these accounting statistics from the
>> Interim-Update messages? 
> 
> I believe you are correct, and this was simply an oversight.

I tend to agree, but I think that the oversight )and error) was
actually in RFC 2869, which defines the semantics of the
Interim-Update Acct-Status-Type.  I think that the problem could
have been avoided but just including "Updates: RFC 2866" in the
header...

> Regards,
> Barney
> 
> --
> Barney Wolff         http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
> I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the
> 'Net. 

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by
simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel

--
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/>