Re: Question on Status-Server document and CoA port

["Greg Weber" <gdweber@gmail.com>]

I am confused about how this WG item is being pursued.
The WG charter milestone says the document will be
submitted as a Proposed Standard, but it has been submitted
as Informational (non-standards track).

Can someone clarify whether the purpose is to:
1) Document the original TAOS & CVX implementations from 9-10 yrs back
as Informational.
2) Add a bunch of new stuff (CoA) which should probably make this Experimental.
3) Develop something on the standards track complete with WG consensus.
4) Something else??

Sorry if this was covered in the WG mtg this week -did not attend.
[I'd pick 1) above.]

Greg


On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
>  One issue with the current draft was brought up in the WG meeting
> yesterday.  The draft proposes that when RADIUS servers start, they send
> Status-Server packets to any NASes that have a CoA port defined.  This
> procedure can be used by the NAS to determine that the server is up,
> potentially increasing network stability.
>
>  This behavior, however, is not part of the traditional implementations
> of Status-Server.  It was suggested at the least IETF by Glen, and added
> to the document after that.
>
>  If the server has many NASes configured, it may send tens, or possibly
> hundreds of packets on startup.  It would seem reasonable to add a
> suggestion to use jitter, though the current draft doesn't suggest that.
>
>  Should the document be updated to suggest jitter, or should the text
> relating to CoA be deleted entirely?
>
>  Alan DeKok.
>
> --
> 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/>
>

--
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/>