RE: Request for Review of RFC 3576 MIB documents

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

> 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.

So, one could classify these additional entities as performing the role
of either a RADIUS [Accounting] Client or RADIUS [Accounting] Server,
even though they may not be the same entity that participated in the
initial authentication and authorization.  Is that correct?  If so, then
we should say it that way.
 
> This is all true, but I still think it's confusing for an RFC 3576 MIB
to
> use different terminology than RFC 3576.

I agree.


--
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/>