Re: [Dime] Errata #1946

This looks good to me. 

Other opinions? 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:gwz@net-zen.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 7:35 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: dime@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Dime] Errata #1946
> 
> Dan Romascanu [mailto://dromasca@avaya.com] writes:
> 
> > DIME WG,
> > 
> > Please issue a recommendation concerning errata #1946 
> (related to RFC
> > 4005)
> 
> While the original text is certainly misleading at best, the 
> new text is not a lot better since is leaves out the 
> Accounting-Input-Packets and Accounting-Output-Packets AVPs.  
> I think that a better correction would be something like this:
> 
>    If the Accounting-Input-Octets, Accounting-Input-Packets,
>    Accounting-Output-Octets, or Accounting-Output-Packets AVPs are
>    present, they SHOULD be translated to the corresponding RADIUS
>    attributes.  However, if the value of the 
> Accounting-Input-Octets AVP
>    or Accounting-Output-Octets AVP does not fit
>    within a 32-bit RADIUS attribute, the RADIUS Acct-Input-
>    Gigawords and Acct-Output-Gigawords Attributes must be used.
> 
> > 
> > Dan
> > _______________________________________________
> > DiME mailing list
> > DiME@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> 
> 
> 