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