RE: Issue 223: Event-Timestamp and Duplicate Detection

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

Perhaps.

 

But there are no formal words in the table.  The first three sentences use terms like "guide" "may be".

 

It also uses must not be present in an Accounting-Request.  So why wouldnt the document make a similar strong statement about those attribute,

 

If it was intended not to be in those messages I would suggest the attributes would have appeared in the table with zeros in the corresponding columns.

 

I think that document is ambiguous in this matter.

---

From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 6:59 PM
To: Avi Lior; Alan DeKok
Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Issue 223: Event-Timestamp and Duplicate Detection

> No. If it was prohibited in an Access-Request, Accept, Reject 
etc... It
> would have specifically stated that. 

Here's what RFC 
2869 Section 5.19 says:
 
   The following table provides a 
guide to which attributes may be found
   in which kind of 
packets.  Acct-Input-Gigawords, Acct-Output-
   Gigawords, 
Event-Timestamp, and NAS-Port-Id may have 0-1 instances in
   an 
Accounting-Request packet.  Connect-Info may have 0+ instances 
in
   an Accounting-Request packet.  The other attributes 
added in this
   document must not be present in an 
Accounting-Request.

Request  Accept  Reject  
Challenge   #    
Attribute
0-1      
0       0       
0           70   
ARAP-Password [Note 1]
0        
0-1     0       
0-1         71   
ARAP-Features
0        
0-1     0       
0           72   
ARAP-Zone-Access
0-1      
0       0       
0-1         73   
ARAP-Security
0+       
0       0       
0+          74   
ARAP-Security-Data
0        
0       0-1     
0           75   
Password-Retry
0        
0       0       
0-1         76   
Prompt
0-1      
0       0       
0           77   
Connect-Info
0        
0+      0       
0           78   
Configuration-Token
0+       
0+      0+      
0+          79   
EAP-Message [Note 1]
0-1      
0-1     0-1     
0-1         80   
Message-Authenticator [Note 1]
0        
0-1     0       
0-1         84   
ARAP-Challenge-Response
0        
0-1     0       
0           85   
Acct-Interim-Interval
0-1      
0       0       
0           87   
NAS-Port-Id
0        
0-1     0       
0           88   
Framed-Pool
Request  Accept  Reject  Challenge   
#    Attribute
 
The first paragraph's first three 
sentences seem to imply that the attributes named can *only* be present in 
an Acccounting-Request.  Otherwise why wouldn't that paragraph have listed 
all the packets that these attributes could be included 
in?