Re: [radext] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Oops, I failed to scroll down when reading this the first time. I have one comment on a comment:

> On Aug 15, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Alan DeKok <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> §3.1 and §3,3: Do the normative changes to Access-Request and
>> Accounting-Request mean that this draft needs to update documents other than
>> just RFC 5176?
> 
>  The document does not provide for normative changes to Access-Request or Accounting-Request packets.  As with other RFCs that define new RADIUS attributes (e.g. 5580), it does not update RFC 2865 or 2866.


Just to be clear, I was thinking about actual normative text, not just the adding of a new attribute. The first paragraph of §3.1 says:

" When a Visited Network proxies an Access-Request or Accounting-Request packet outside of its network, it SHOULD include an Operator-Name attribute in the packet, as discussed in Section 4.1 of[RFC5580]”

The SHOULD is a new normative requirement that relates to Access-Request of Accounting-Request. I can accept that we are talking about “proxies that implement this extension”, if that is the intent. But if the intent was that proxies in general SHOULD do this, that seems different.

Thanks,

Ben.