Re: Changes to draft-ietf-radext-vlan to address IESG DISCUSS Comments

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:

>> Works for me. But didn't you have a discussion earlier that
>> user-priority-table would not be mandatory?
>
>
> There may be situations in which it could be mandatory.  For example,
> for DoS prevention, it might be required to remark frames at an
> exchange point that are transmitted by an ISP that doesn't do ingress
> filtering.

OK

> The problem is that a RADIUS/Diameter gateway may not necessarily know
> what the intent of the attribute is, so that it seems safest if the
> 'M' bit is always set.  That's why I moved it from the 'MAY' column to
> the MUST column.

It is indeed important that the gateways do not have to start making
policy decisions of what a value means. All translation should be
as mechanical as possible.

(I cleared my DISCUSS based on the new version.)

--Jari


--
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/>