Re: Request for Review of RFC 3576 MIB documents

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

Review of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-client-mib-00.txt

pp. 3:
No need to start each new Section on a separate page.

Section 4:
I would prefer that these MIB documents use the same terminology as RFC
3576, rather than inventing new terminology.

Why can't we just state up front that a DynAuthClient = RADIUS Server,
DynAuthServer = RADIUS Client, and avoid using the DAC and DAS
abbreviations?

Section 5
"This table contains one row for each DAS that the DAC shares a secret with."

RFC 3576 only talks about secrets shared between RADIUS clients and
servers, not between a DAS and a DAC.

Section 6

radiusDynAuthClientInvalidServerAddresses

Do we want to combine CoA and Disconnect statistics in one variable?

                "The number of RADIUS Disconnect-Response packets
                 which contained invalid Signature attributes
                 received from this Dynamic Authorization server."

What is a Signature Attribute?  Do you mean Message-Authenticator? I
thought we decided that this attribute couldn't be used in RFC 3576.

Same issue on Signature Attribute in the Server document.

--
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/>