RE: Comments on the draft-ietf-radext-filter-04 or.. -05

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

Jouni Korhonen writes...

> Just a small note/question regarding the text stating Filter-ID and
> NAS-Filter-Rule must not appear in the same message. I don't see
> this kind of "must" restriction on Diameter side (RFC4005) so why
> should RADIUS have it? So e.g. in section 2 would
>   "..attributes, and SHOULD NOT appear in the same RADIUS packet."
> be better? Also it is not entirely clear to me why e.g. Filter-Id
> and NAS-Filter-Rule must be mutually exclusive? This was questioned
> by some organizations that intend to use NAS-Filter-Rule. I guess
> defining rule applying order would also be alternative..?

The reason is that there is no existing specification in the RADIUS RFCs
that would indicate what the precedence would be among potentially
competing expressions of filtering behavior.  In the absence of any such
specification, then the precedence is up the NAS implementation and
would lead to very poor interoperability.


--
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/>