[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is provisioning services in Accounting-Request packets bad?

On Jun 16, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Avi Lior wrote:

> I am not sure what general guidance you would propose here that would help and not hinder.

I'm not sure where such guidance would be delivered.  This is not a matter of RADIUS Attribute design, and it's out scope for the Design Guidelines.  It seems to me this is (or is not) a deviation from the RADIUS operational model, depending on your interpretation.

It may well be a reasonable solution in a given set or circumstances.  It certainly does not follow the "conservative" or "narrow" interpretation of the RADIUS operational model (command level data flow).  This is fine as a proprietary vendor extension to RADIUS.  My only concern would be if this kind of adaptation were to become popular, and customers created a demand to replicate this solution in other use / deployment cases, where it may not be appropriate.  I would not like to see this sort of solution evolve to become a de facto or de jure extension to the RADIUS standard.




--
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/>