RE: Request for Review of RFC 3576 MIB documents

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

> > Why can't we just state up front that a DynAuthClient = RADIUS
Server,
> > DynAuthServer = RADIUS Client, and avoid using the DAC and DAS
> > abbreviations?
> >
> 
> One reason is that the client need not be limited to a RADIUS Server.
> Infact it can be any entity that shares a secret and uses the
interfaces
> specified by RFC3576, for e.g. a Rating Engine or a Captive Portal.

Hmmm.  I don't think it's a good idea for RADIUS RFCs (or the RADEXT WG)
to be documenting protocols for applications that are not RADIUS.  While
I understand that one *could* re-use elements of RADIUS protocol
documents to create a new application, I think that the RADIUS documents
themselves need to stick close to home and describe RADIUS.  Period.

> > Section 5
> > "This table contains one row for each DAS that the DAC shares a
secret
> with."
> >
> > RFC 3576 only talks about secrets shared between RADIUS clients and
> > servers, not between a DAS and a DAC.
> >
> 
> Kind of same as above.

I offer the same comment as above, in kind.  :-)

-- Dave


--
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/>