Re: RADEXT Issue 148 Item 6

[Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:14:18AM -0500, Nelson, David wrote:
> 
> (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}

NO.  Surely the question for interoperability is
what the receiver is going to do with the packet, not how it counts it.
We already have definition of what a well-formed packet is, so defining
malformed separately risks conflict.  The notion that an implementation
should have separate code to check malformation, apart from the code
that actually processes the content, does not strike me as good advice.

> (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}

NO.  An implementation that does anything with the contents of a VSA
that it does not understand is broken.

-- 
Barney Wolff         http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I never met a computer I didn't like.

--
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/>