Re: Issue 101: IEEE802 RFC (WG Last Call Review) Status Recap

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

"Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com> wrote:
> I'm not at all comfortable with the notion of introducing new normative
> RADIUS behavior in the form of an Accounting-[Start|Stop] message as an
> ACK or NAK of an Access-Accept message.  Especially a NAK.  While it
> might be made to serve that purpose, IMHO, that's a subtle but
> substantive change to the RADIUS protocol.

  I concur.

> I understand that some implementations use co-resident Accounting
> servers to implement such things as concurrent session limitations
> for a single user.  That kind of functionality is outside the scope
> of RADIUS as documented in RFC 2865/66, however.

  Agreed.  But site-local deployments of that functionality have
site-local side-effects.  This issue would involve changes to long
established implementations.

  I don't see this issue as problematic (for reasons outlined
earlier), but I don't see it as at all beneficial.  If there's no
benefit to doing it (as you pointed out), it shouldn't be done.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>