[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ISSUE] Status-Server
Greg Weber wrote:
> * idnits says the boilerplate needs to be updated.
> * In section 3, I see: "Status-Server packets MAY include NAS-Identifier,
> one of NAS-IP-Address or NAS-IPv6-Address, and Reply-Message."
> This conflicts with the Table of Attributes in section 6 which indicates
> that Reply-Message cannot be included in Status-Server packets.
The Status-Server packet shouldn't include a Reply-Message. I've
updated the document.
> * Reply-Message can be included in Access-Accept, but not Acct-Response?
> That means the Verbose Query and Response example in section 7.3 works
> only for authentication servers and not accounting servers. That seems like
> a discontinuity.
Yes. It's in line with existing implementations, and with practices
for Accounting-Response. I wouldn't want this document to make it look
like Accounting-Response can now contain standard RADIUS attributes.
> * The Table of Attributes in section 6 indicates that Calling-Station-Id
> may be included Status-Server and Access-Accept packets. This
> conflicts with RFC 2865 which disallows that attribute in Access-Accept.
> And, how would this attribute be populated in Status-Server packets
> where there is no associated calling station?
The reference to Calling-Station-Id has been removed from the Table of
> * I would suggest removing all of section 5. These topics seem related,
> but not germane to the purpose and scope of this doc.
Possibly. Are there other people who agree?
> * In section 4.1, I see "Robust implementations SHOULD accept any Response
> packet as a valid response to a Status-Server packet..." That seems to be a
> pretty fundamental change to the RADIUS request/response model. I would
> suggest removing that paragraph or changing it to a MAY.
As per other reviews, I've updated that to say SHOULD accept
Access-Accept/Accounting-Response. Other response types are NOT
> Small changes by section:
> ToC: Fix indent & missing title on 2.3.2
> Section 3: "MUST NOTE" -> "MUST NOT"
> Section 3.1: "is an CoA-ACK packet" -> "is a CoA-ACK packet."
I've deleted that text.
> Section 4.3: "to start packets to start" -> "to start"
> Section 4.4: "may sent" -> "may be sent"
> Section 4.6: "along along" -> "along"
> Section 4.6: "impement" -> "implement"
> Section 5.1: "has internal RADIUS server that proxy" ->
> "has an internal RADIUS server that proxies"
Fixed as per Alfred's review.
> Section 6: "table provide a guide" -> "table provides a guide"
> Small global changes:
> "it's" -> "its" (6 times)
> "wide-spread" -> "widespread" (2 times)
> "inter-operable" -> "interoperable" (1 time)
> "use-case" -> "use case" (3 times)
> "pro-actively" -> "proactively" (1 time)
> "re-use" -> "reuse" (3 times)
> "coa" -> "CoA" (2 times)
> "16-octet" -> "16 octet" (3 times)
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.