RE: Request for Review: Status Server Document

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

I have a "big picture" question to ask before I delve into further levels of
detailed review and questions.

Why is the Server-Status "query" packet responded to by an Access-Accept
"reply" packet?  It seems to me that were over-loading the semantics of
Access-Accept by using it in this way.  Maybe that's not particularly
harmful -- I don't know for sure -- but over-loading always seems like a Bad
Idea (tm) to me.

Wouldn't it have been possible to use the same Command Code (Server-Status)
for *both* the query and response, with the context coming from who's doing
the receiving?  I think that would be preferable, in a number of ways.

I did see the not-so-subtle hint that this document is describing *existing*
implementations, much as we did in the original RADIUS WG.  The inference I
draw is that redesign (i.e. helpful suggestions for alternate choices, such
as the one my question raises) is not solicited or welcomed.  Of course,
maybe I'm simply reading too much into that wording. 

Anyway, why couldn't Server-Status be the RADIUS Command Code used for both
queries and replies?

Regards,

Dave Nelson



--
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/>