Re: Discussion of Issue 146 (fwd)

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

"Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com> wrote:
> So then we're looking at clarifying existing behavior as described in
> the current RFCs, rather than correcting any potential errata in those
> RFCs?

  One additional issue I noticed was that RFC 2618 has a counter for
pending requests, but RFC 2619 does not.  However, the equations at
the top of page 9 in RFC 2619 do mention "pending" requests.

  Do we want to add "pending" requests to rfc2619bis and rfc2621bis?

  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/>