RE: inconsistency in RFC 5176

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

Bernard Aboba <> scribbled on Friday, February 15, 2008 6:07 AM:

>  There is no contradiction here.   Section 3.5 says:
> 
> "Values 200-299 represent successful completion, so that these 
> values may only be sent within CoA-ACK or Disconnect-ACK packets  and
> MUST NOT be sent within a CoA-NAK or Disconnect-NAK packet."  
> 
> There are only two values in the range 200-299 which are defined:
> 
>       201    Residual Session Context Removed
>       202    Invalid EAP Packet (Ignored)
> 
> Error 202 is explicitly prohibited for use by RFC 5176
> implementations: 
> 
>       "Invalid EAP Packet (Ignored)" is a non-fatal error that MUST
>       NOT be sent by implementations of this specification.
> 
> Error 201 is also not currently defined for use with RFC 5176 since
> it refers to removal of key context, not modification or
> disconnection of sessions.  
> 
> Therefore,  Section 3.5 and 3.6 are in agreement.

Thanks, Bernard, I was just about to respond in that very fashion,
except that the table headed "Disconnect Messages" in section 3.6
completely disallows the use of the Error-Cause Attribute in
Disconnect-ACK messages, while section 3.5 says; 

      "Residual Session Context Removed" is sent in response to a
      Disconnect-Request if one or more user sessions are no longer
      active, but residual session context was found and successfully
      removed.  This value is only sent within a Disconnect-ACK and MUST
      NOT be sent within a CoA-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, or CoA-NAK.

It seems that the table is in error to me.  BTW, I can't find anything
in the document that says that Error 201 is currently undefined; what am
I missing?

...


--
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/>