RE: Request for Review: "Issues and Fixes" changes -- Call-Check.

["David B. Nelson" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>]

Alan DeKok writes...
 
>   Maybe we want to change that to "... Call Check MAY NOT contain
>   a State attribute".  This permits them to (magically) have one 
>   if they so desire.  It permits them to not have one in real-life
>   implementations.

"MAY NOT" is not a keyword defined in RFC 2119.  I would avoid using it.  I
think you want to say something like:

"Access-Request messages containing a Service-Type attribute with a value of
Call Check SHOULD NOT contain a State attribute."

You might go on to say:

"The standard use case for Call-Check is pre-screening authentication based
solely on the phone number information in Calling-Station-ID and optionally
Called-Station-ID.  In that use case there is no source of the State
attribute in the NAS.  Other, non-standard, uses of Call-Check may require
or permit the use of a State Attribute, but are beyond the scope of this
document."

> This permits them to (magically) have one if they so
> desire.  It permits them to not have one in real-life 
> implementations.

The text I suggest here does the same.  It just makes the usage conditions a
bit more explicit, which I think is desirable. 




--
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/>