RE: RADEXT Issue 148 Item 6

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Dan Romascanu writes...

> I believe that (a) is not an acceptable solution from an
> interoperability point of view. The currently used term of 'malformed'
> is not defined properly. If left to the implementation to interpret
> 'malformed', interoperability cannot be ensured. Rather than
documenting
> this situation, I would by now rather deprecate the current objects
> counting 'malformed', define the term properly, and create new
objects,
> now or later.

That seems like a reasonable suggestion.  Let me solicit an informal
poll of the WG Mailing list to see if we have a consensus solution to
this issue.

Please reply to the list answering these two poll questions:

(1) Should the existing RADIUS MIB objects that count malformed packets
be deprecated, a normative definition of malformed created, and new
counter objects be added to count malformed packets according to the new
definition?  {YES|NO}

(2) Should the normative definition of malformed packets, created as
described in Question (1), include packets that do not conform to the
suggested VSA syntax of RFC 2865? {YES|NO}

Thanks, in advance, for your assistance!

-- Dave


--
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/>