|
Error 201 is defined. However,
RFC 5716 only defines to how modify authorizations
or delete current sessions. Presumably if a session were not active, then current implementations would return a Disconnect-NAK or CoA-NAK, rather than a Disconnect-ACK with Error-Code value 201. OK, but
shouldn't the Error-Cause attribute still be allowed in the
table?
> From: glenzorn@comcast.net > To: Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com; mchiba@cisco.com; radiusext@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: inconsistency in RFC 5176 > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:19:27 +0700 > > 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? > > ... > |