Re: FW: Review of draft-ietf-radext-status-server

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Ignacio Goyret wrote:
> IMO, the use of Access-Accept for a use
> *other* than what it has always been intended for is opening
> a can of worms with potentially unintended consequences.

  I agree with that.  If the document had been a WG item, Status-Server
packets would have had a Status-Response packet.

> However, in the Security section, it should be mentioned that
> both servers and clients can be attacked independently when
> either one supports Server-Status, even if the other doesn't.

  OK.

  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/>