Jouni, See below for response to your comments. Using [MS1] for my responses. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner- > radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 7:01 PM > [JiK] -01 looks better now. I would still change change the > 'local operator' to 'local visited operator'. [MS1] Ok. I forgot to do this in -02, but will make change in -03. > > o what is the purpose of the rule-delim in the > > NAS-Traffic-Rule ABNF? As far as I interpreted the > > ABNF there can be only one rule per attribute anyway? > > I could be wrong ;) > > The first version of the syntax had no rule delimiter and people > commented > that having a delimiter would eliminate any possibility for ambiguity > of > rule end. > > [JiK] So if there can be only one rule per attribute I still don't see > a > need for rule-delim. It does not add any value imho. [MS1] There may actually be more than one rule per attribute. Another interesting case is when one rule is split across two attributes (due to length). What if we added the following to in the description section? "A NAS-Traffic-Rule attribute may contain a partial rule, one rule, or more than one rule. Traffic rules may be contained across attribute boundaries, so implementations cannot assume that individual traffic rules begin or end on attribute boundaries." > > o What's the intended use for the L2 filtering? I'd > > like to see some real use case described here > > BPDU filtering is one real use case. > > [JiK] Right. Probably a sentence or two saying L2 filtering is needed > e.g. for BPDU filtering in the intro or some appendix examples > would be good.. [MS1] Ok. How about the following in the intro? "Layer 2 filters are useful in filtering BPDU traffic for which layer 3 filters have no effect." We may also consider adding BPDU to the terminology section. Cheers, MS
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature