[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Request for Review of RFC 3576 MIB documents

Nelson, David wrote:
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.


The RFC really changes the traditional concept of what elements behave as a RADIUS server and which as the RADIUS client. The original drafts had that clear and I didnt realize that the final versions actually didnt emphasize it. So we tried to clarify that with the MIB and mentioned upfront what the new terms actually represented.

If there is a general consensus on that being rather confusing, we can switch it around but still maintain some text to clarify the roles!

Thanks,
Murtaza



--
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/>


--
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/>