Re: Review of draft-ietf-radext-vlan-02.txt

[Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>]

Hi Mauricio,

another issue that came to my mind again was raised during the 
discussion with Bernard is that the User-Priority-Table is used for 
remapping of user priorities only according to the User Priority 
Regeneration table. The conclusion of our discussion was that your draft 
does not aim to attemp to associate the actual data traffic with the QoS 
classes.

Ciao
Hannes

Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi Mauricio,
>
> thanks for responding to this issue. Please find my response below:
>
> > > > your new text proposal looks much better.
> > > >
> > > > You need to modify Section 3 as well:
> > > >
> > > > "
> > > >  Access-   Access-  Access-  Access-    CoA-
> > > >   Request   Accept   Reject   Challenge  Req    #   Attribute
> > > >     0        0-1      0        0         0-1   TBD  
> > >
> > >
> > > User-Priority-Table
> > >
> > > > "
> > >
> > >
> > > Got it.   BTW, do you think that *any* of the attributes are 
> > > appropriate for inclusion in an Accounting-Request?
> >
> >
> >
> > An argument to allow these attributes in an Accounting-Request is for
> > forensic purposes.  The accounting server is already aggregating a
> > number of session characteristics (packet/byte counts) and allowing
> > attributes from the vlan draft would shed additional light on the what
> > specific services the user was consuming/using at a given point in time.
>
> Assume that you carry the User-Priority-Table within Accounting-Request 
> messages. Do you think that it provides information how many packets are 
> carried for each individual QoS class? Where is the information that 
> offers me the following info:
> - # packets/bytes for user priority 0
> ....
> - # packets/bytes for user priority 7
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> > Cheers,
> > MS


--
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/>