Subject: Re: [pcp] Review of draft-maglione-pcp-radius-ext-05

From: Dean cheng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 00:20:12 +0000

Hi Alan, thanks for your comment, and we'll 
update the related text and align it with 
the 6rd draft (now RFC6930) in that regard.

Dean

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Alan DeKok
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:19 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] Review of draft-maglione-pcp-radius-ext-05
> 
>   Finishing the message...
> 
> Alan DeKok wrote:
> >   This email is a quick review of the draft-maglione-pcp-radius-ext-
> 05
> > document.  Overall, it looks fairly good.
> 
>   Another note.  Section 3 says:
> 
>    In the scenario depicted in Figure 2 the Access-Request packet
>    contains a Service-Type attribute with the value Authorize Only (17),
>    thus according to [RFC5080] the Access-Request packet MUST contain a
>    State attribute.
> 
> 
>   That text is identical with previous drafts using RADIUS for
> authorization-only.  It's wrong.
> 
>   There was a LOT of discussion in RADEXT about this.  There's really
> no
> perfect solution.  But the text should be fixed.
> 
>   Alan DeKok.
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp