[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
- To: "Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>, "Frank Quick" <fquick@qualcomm.com>, "Barney Wolff" <barney@databus.com>
- Subject: RE: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
- From: "Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:12:45 -0500
- Cc: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, <gwz@cisco.com>, "Thomas Narten" <narten@us.ibm.com>, "W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>, "Carroll, Christopher P." <Ccarroll@ropesgray.com>, <gerry.flynn@verizonwireless.com>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Avi Lior writes...
> Actually this is not true. It was a calculated decision to use
> Access-Reject. Perhaps Frank or someone closer to it would tell you
why
> they did that.
Hmmm... OK. I was giving the authors the "benefit of the doubt" here. I
still assume that the authors did not intentionally (knowingly)
contradict (violate, be out of compliance with, what-have-you) a
normative MUST requirement of the base RADIUS RFC. Let's write this off
an as unintentional error, that exists in existing deployments, but is
deprecated for any new work, and move on.
--
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/>