RE: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-fixes

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>]

Glen Zorn writes...
 
> This paragraph sound self-contradictory to me: how can a client 
> silently discard duplicate responses if it doesn't detect that 
> they _are_ duplicate responses?

It merely needs to determine that the response is related to a request that
is no longer pending.  That's a form of duplicate detection, I suppose, but
it does not require that the response is literally a duplicate, only that it
is not expected or needed.

> This doesn't see to address the issue of the Identifier being
> essentially useless for duplicate detection if not monotonically
> increasing...

Monotonically increasing Identifiers would be nice, as it makes the
detection algorithm much more efficient.  As above, all that is _required_
is that the client can tell that the response is related to a request that
is no longer pending.  Adding a new normative requirement for monotonically
increasing Identifiers would seem to me to be a non-backward compatible
change to RADIUS, and thus likely out of scope.



--
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/>