[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question re: RFC 2865 and State attribute in table 5.44



  This seems to contradict the proposed text in section 2.1.1 of the
Issues & Fixes draft:

   An Access-Request sent as a result of a new or restarted
   authentication run MUST NOT include the State attribute, even if the
   State attribute has previously been received in an Access-Challenge
   for the same user and port.

  My preference is to keep the text from the Issues & Fixes document,
with the idea that States are tied to a session, not to a user.

I think that's right, as long as we define a "Session" carefully. For example, a re-authentication would result in a new session, whereas an RFC 3576 CoA-Request would not, correct? I was somewhat surprised to read the RFC 2865 text relating to use of State along with Termination-Action.

  On going back and re-reading the Issues & Fixes document, I think the
case I raised here is mostly covered by the existing text.

I think you're right.



--
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/>