RE: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Frank Quick writes...

> This sounds very reasonable, but I think it actually goes beyond the
> context of this draft.  I believe there is no clear statement of this
> policy that the draft can reference, and it is not a good idea for a
draft
> of this nature to create new policy.  For this draft maybe it is
enough
> that we state that RFC 2865 forbids VSA in Access-Reject, and that
future
> work should consider using Access-Challenge instead.  That would avoid
> having to discuss the semantics issue in the draft.

It is apparent that there is some disagreement within the RADIUS
community within IETF about the usage of Access-Reject.  The areas of
disagreement cover whether Access-Reject implies link-layer disconnect
and when Access-Reject or Access-Challenge is appropriate (or
permissible).  In RADEXT, we have added this set of issues to be
considered in our RADIUS Issues and Fixes I-D.   Given this lack of
clear consensus, it might be advisable to craft an IESG note along the
lines that Frank describes.  Future RFCs may provide more definitive
guidance in this area.  Understanding that, it is appropriate to
discourage new work using *this* document as a precedent.


--
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/>