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

Re: Proxy State and RFC 3576bis

Good point.

RFC 3576 implementers -- can you weigh in?



From: Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
CC: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Proxy State and RFC 3576bis
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 03:06:18 +0200

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> [Alan DeKok]  Yes.
>
> [BA] This suggests that paragraphs 3 and 4 in the text below are not
> correct. Any suggestions on how we can fix it?

  Before I do that, it would appear that my recommendation here is
opposite to what RFC 3576 says.  Are we OK with changing the
recommendation in -bis?

  That is, do current implementations behave as per RFC 3576?  If so, I
would prefer to maintain inter-operability.  The text can then be left
as-is.

  If not, then the implementations do not use Proxy-State, and I would
prefer to replace the paragraphs with other text explaining why
Proxy-State is not used.  The text in RFC 3576 permits implementations
to receive Proxy-State, but to not forward it.  Maybe the
implementations have chosen that method.

  My preference is to have one recommended method of operation, rather
than 2-3.

  I'd like to get clarity on those questions before submitting suggested
text.

  Alan DeKok.





--
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/>