RE: RFC3576bis and Session State

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

David B. Nelson <> allegedly scribbled on Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:22
AM:

> Alan DeKok writes...
> 
>>>  Since both the RADIUS server and client have to change to support
>>> your suggestion, it would be really cool if we could actually
>>> _solve_ that problem here instead of just applying YABA, don't you
>>> think?
>> 
>>    My suggestion is only relevant to new implementations of CoA, in
>> which case they're changing anyways...
> 
> Yes, but I think Glen is fishing for support for his "logoff" draft,
> in which he introduces a new RADIUS command types, that allow the NAS
> to explicitly signal the 

beginning and the

> end of a session to the RADIUS Server.  One
> problem with that draft is that the RADEXT WG charter disallows the
> introduction of new commands.   

Ah, so!  Are you _sure_?  Are you positive that 10 minutes after we
submit it to the RFC Editor as an individual submission it won't
magically become in conflict w/this WG's charter?

--
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/>