Re: Discussion of RADEXT Issue 148 (MIB review)

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

"Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com> wrote:
> While having a formal definition of "malformed" packets might be useful,
> since one has not heretofore existed I am concerned that creating such a
> definition at this point in time might in effect change the definition
> of existing objects.  If there is WG consensus on a definition of
> "malformed", and agreement that this consensus definition matches with
> existing implementations, then it may be desirable to add a definition
> of "malformed".  Comments are solicited.

  Malformed means that the implementation has determined the packet
does not match the format defined in RFC 2865.

  Some implementations may say packets are malformed when the VSA
format does not follow the RFC 2865 suggestion.  Those implementations
are used in deployments today, and thus set the de-facto definition of
"malformed".

  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/>