RE: REMINDER: RADEXT WG Last Call on RFC 3576bis

["Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Do you want an official issues raised? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:41 PM
To: Avi Lior; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: REMINDER: RADEXT WG Last Call on RFC 3576bis

You are right.  There is no good reason to support Service-Type =
Authorize-Only for a Disconnect-Request.  As you point out, it isn't
needed for Diameter compatibility (in fact, it would complicate things).
Also, what if the RADIUS server doesn't send an Access-Reject in
response to the Access-Request?  Then it would function just like a
CoA-Request.

Assuming that there are no objections,  it might be a good idea to
remove this.

>Forgive me for asking a potentially stupid question but why is 
>Service-Type = Authorise-Only required Disconnect Message?
>
>I can see the use of it in Change of Authorization but why in 
>Disconnect Message?
>
>There is a direct command that goes from the Server to the Client in 
>Diameter and that would map directly to the Disconnect Message sent 
>from the Server to the Client. Why do we need the Service-Type = 
>Authorize-Only semantics?  It doesn't make sense.



--
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/>