RE: RADEXT WG Last Call on Status-Server Document

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

Alan DeKok writes...

> > IIRC, the consensus of the room at the RADEXT WG meeting at
> > IETF-73 was that this was a bad idea.
 
> OK, if the consensus is that it's a bad idea, that can be
> removed from the draft.

As usual, tentative consensus from an IETF meeting needs to be confirmed on
the list.  This would seem to be a good opportunity to do so.

Consensus Call:  Should we document the following as "recognized" RADIUS
behavior?

   Some server implementations accept both Access-Request and
   Accounting-Request packets on the same port, and do not distinguish
   between "authentication only" ports, and "accounting only" ports.
   Those implementations SHOULD reply to Status-Server packets with an
   Access-Accept packet.

> > Where do we draw the line?
> 
>   We'd like to draw it at things that are crazy.  But we're
> too late for that.

Too late in terms of what folks have implemented, yes.  Not too late in
terms of what we publish in an RFC and recognize as "recommended" behavior.
Not all bugs need to be promoted to feature status.
 
>   Maybe it's best to say that authentication ports respond with
> Access-Accept, and accounting ports respond with Accounting-Response.
> Anything else is NOT RECOMMENDED.

That would certainly cover all bases.
 
>   Comments?

Yes, comments from others, please.



--
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/>