[Isms] FW: COMMENT: draft-ietf-isms-radius-usage

["Dave Nelson" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Nelson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:54 AM
> To: 'Adrian Farrel'; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; draft-ietf-isms-radius-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: COMMENT: draft-ietf-isms-radius-usage
> 
> Adrian Farrel writes...
> 
> > Subject: COMMENT: draft-ietf-isms-radius-usage
> >
> > Comment:
> > Table 2 says
> >    0    This attribute MUST NOT be present in a packet.
> >    0+   Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present in
> >         a packet.
> >    0-1  Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present in
> >         a packet.
> >    1    Exactly one instance of this attribute MUST be present in
> >         a packet.
> >    *    Only one of these atribute options SHOULD be included.
> >
> > But:
> > - table 1 has no instance of 0+
> > - table 1 has no instance of 1
> 
> This table footnote is "standard boilerplate" for RADIUS documents.  It is
> traditionally included in its entirety even when not all of the elements
> are
> actually used in a particular document.  It's like including RFC 2119 in
> the
> references even though not all of the keywords are actually used in the
> document.  I don't think this will confuse anyone familiar with RADIUS
> RFCs.
> On the other hand, customizing the footnote for brevity would not cause
> any
> problems.
> 
> > - * seems to contradict 0-1
> 
> Once again, it is fairly common to indicate that one of a set of
> alternative
> attributes may be included in a RADIUS packet.  It's also common to use a
> footnote in the Table of Attribute to convey this information.  There is
> no
> actual contradiction here.  This could be expanded into a sentence (or
> two)
> for added clarity, but this usage is common to RADIUS documentation.