RE: RADEXT Issue 148 Item 6

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

The counter objects are for malformed packets. So a definition is
necessary, even if the definition is just saying something like 'a
malformed packet is any packet that is not well-formed, according to
[reference]'.

Interoperability means that the document is clear enough so that two
different implementers can create two distinct implementations that
result in the same counter values for any given mix of well-formed and
malformed packets. Different implementations following the text in the
documents MUST NOT result in different counter values. 

Regards,

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barney Wolff
> 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.
> 


--
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/>