Re: Summary of WG review of "RADIUS over TCP" document

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Based on the discussion at IETF 73, the following issues have been filed
> against the document:
> 
> Issue 291 	Pending 	Technical 	UDP/TCP Translation
> <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue%20291>
> Alan DeKok

  I've updated the document with text as suggested by Bernard.

> Issue 292 	Pending 	Technical 	Applicability
> <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue%20292>
> Alan DeKok 

  I have updated the document as per review, and consolidated the
multiple applicability sections into one.  The document now also says
that using bare TCP is NOT RECOMMENDED.

> Issue 293 	Pending 	Technical 	Watchdog Timer
> <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue%20293>
> Alan DeKok

  I would prefer to leave the discussion of Status-Server && RADIUS ID
use in this document.  The traditional use of Status-Server is over UDP,
and therefore does not have the issues presented here.  (i.e. suggestion
to reserve one RADIUS ID per TCP connection for Status-Server.)

  Since this document is discussing non-traditional TCP transport issues
related to Status-Server, this document appears to be the best place for
this discussion.

> Issue 294 	No Discussion 	Technical 	Document Status
> <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue%20294>
> Bernard Aboba

  I have updated the document status to be "Experimental", to be in line
with the RadSec document, which is also experimental.

> Issue 295 	Pending 	Technical 	Head of Line Blocking
> <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue%20295>
> Alan DeKok <mailto:aland@deployingradius.com>

  This issue appears to be substantially similar, if not ientical, to
Issue 291.

  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/>