Re: Items from the IETF-63 meeting requiring confirmation.

[Murtaza Chiba <mchiba@cisco.com>]

Bernard,


Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > If, however, the group at large feels that the terms MUST change then we  ask
> > how to make the terms/text less confusing, bearing in mind that the roles of
> > the RADIUS Server and Client are actually reversed in the case of the RFC3576.
>
>
> RFC 3576 uses the terms "NAS" and "RADIUS server" to refer to the
> entities, although the term "RADIUS client" is used occasionally as well.
> My overall impression on rereading RFC 3576 is that is fairly clear about 
> what entities are involved and what they do.  I think that using the 
> term "NAS" instead of "RADIUS client" most of the time was helpful in that 
> regard. 
>
> Maybe something like this might help here?  Might it make sense to have a 
> "Dynamic Authorization NAS MIB" and a "Dynamic Authorization Server MIB"? 

The NAS IS the Dynamic Authorization "Server" as described in RFC3576. 
That is, the NAS actually services requests from a client (RADIUS server).

Besides Dynamic Authorization Server is new term DAS that has been used 
in the MIBs.

So your proposal is more confusing really.

Murtaza


> Reducing the usage of the term "client" might help the clarity. 

--
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/>