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/>