[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-fixes
Glen Zorn writes...
> This paragraph sound self-contradictory to me: how can a client
> silently discard duplicate responses if it doesn't detect that
> they _are_ duplicate responses?
It merely needs to determine that the response is related to a request that
is no longer pending. That's a form of duplicate detection, I suppose, but
it does not require that the response is literally a duplicate, only that it
is not expected or needed.
> This doesn't see to address the issue of the Identifier being
> essentially useless for duplicate detection if not monotonically
Monotonically increasing Identifiers would be nice, as it makes the
detection algorithm much more efficient. As above, all that is _required_
is that the client can tell that the response is related to a request that
is no longer pending. Adding a new normative requirement for monotonically
increasing Identifiers would seem to me to be a non-backward compatible
change to RADIUS, and thus likely out of scope.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.