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

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

I support David's approach.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 1:32 PM
> To: Frank Quick; Alan DeKok; Avi Lior; W. Mark Townsley
> Cc: Jari Arkko; Barney Wolff; Thomas Narten; Carroll, 
> Christopher P.; gerry.flynn@verizonwireless.com; 
> radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
> 
> 
> 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/>