RE: RFC 2866 clarifications

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

Alan DeKok writes...

>  How do we clarify it for everyone else?

Well, this would be a natural item for the RADIUS Issues and Fixes draft.
Too bad that draft is already approved and in the RRC Editor's queue.

One alternative is to issue an RFC Errata to RFC 2866.  One may argue about
how effective such errata are, but it is one available mechanism.

>  How do we deal with vendors who have it defined the opposite way?

That's an entirely different question.  The IETF publishes standards and
other memos for the industry to use, or not, as they choose.  There's
nothing that the RADEXT WG or the IETF can do to "deal with" incorrect
implementation, based on misinterpretation of the RFC, even when the RFC
text is admittedly somewhat confusing.

As to your initial query, I think it would be reasonable for the RADEXT WG
to attempt to come to consensus on the "correct" interpretation of these
attributes.



--
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/>