Re: Request for Review: Status Server Document

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

Alan DeKok wrote:

>   I'll add some text to the document to this effect.  "Overloading
> Access-Accept is horrible.  RADIUS would normally use something like
> Ping-Check and Ping-Ack, but implementations exist..."

That would help to put the base protocol around Server-Status into 
historical perspective.

>   And the charter prevents us from creating more RADIUS codes...

Not anymore!  :-)  Here are the only restrictions in the *revised* charter:

In order to enable interoperation of heterogeneous RADIUS/Diameter
deployments, all RADEXT WG work items MUST contain a Diameter
compatibility section, outlining how interoperability with
Diameter will be maintained.

Furthermore, to ensure backward compatibility with existing RADIUS
implementations, as well as compatibility between RADIUS and Diameter,
the following restrictions are imposed on extensions considered by the
RADEXT WG:

- All documents produced MUST specify means of interoperation with
legacy RADIUS and, if possible, be backward
compatible with existing RADIUS RFCs, including RFCs 2865-2869,
3162, 3575, 3579, 3580, 4668-4673,4675, 5080, 5090 and 5176.
Transport profiles should, if possible, be compatible with RFC 3539.

- All RADIUS work MUST be compatible with equivalent facilities in
Diameter. Where possible, new attributes should be defined so that
the same attribute can be used in both RADIUS and Diameter without
translation. In other cases a translation considerations
section should be included in the specification.



--
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/>