RE: Request for Review of RFC 3576 MIB documents

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> Hmmm.  I don't think it's a good idea for RADIUS RFCs (or the RADEXT WG)
> to be documenting protocols for applications that are not RADIUS.  While
> I understand that one *could* re-use elements of RADIUS protocol
> documents to create a new application, I think that the RADIUS documents
> themselves need to stick close to home and describe RADIUS.  Period.
>

I think the document is describing RADIUS.  But Murtaza is saying that the
entity that sends the Disconnect-Request or CoA-Request may not be the
same entity as the RADIUS authentication server.  It could for example, be
located on the same box as the RADIUS Accounting Server, or on a box
different from both the accounting and authentication servers.

This is all true, but I still think it's confusing for an RFC 3576 MIB to
use different terminology than RFC 3576.

--
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/>