IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review of draft-ietf-radext-status-server-05 (Part II)

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Wed, 24 February 2010 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C383A8532 for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:06:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.591, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0PUQA2s0cGku for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 724FD28C176 for <radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>) id 1NkPN3-000CBZ-K2 for radiusext-data0@psg.com; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:06:17 +0000
Received: from [88.191.76.128] (helo=liberty.deployingradius.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <aland@deployingradius.com>) id 1NkPN1-000CBH-7A for radiusext@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:06:15 +0000
Message-ID: <4B85A2D5.2020906@deployingradius.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:06:13 +0100
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ignacio Goyret <i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.com>
CC: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-radext-status-server-05 (Part II)
References: <BLU137-W6861B435730E1D4BA388293520@phx.gbl> <4B7AB10C.5030800@deployingradius.com> <201002242136.o1OLaSc0017148@cliff.eng.ascend.com>
In-Reply-To: <201002242136.o1OLaSc0017148@cliff.eng.ascend.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <radiusext.ops.ietf.org>

Ignacio Goyret wrote:
>>> [BA] You might say that the server MUST ignore other attributes. 
>                                       ^^^^
> Why MUST?
> 
> Shouldn't that be up to the server's local policy?
> What if the server needs/wants to check one of those extra attributes?
> (possibly including vendor-specific attributes)

  What are the checks for?  The only possible decision that can be made
is whether or not to reply to a Status-Server.

  Would it be useful to allow a server to *not* respond, if it saw a VSA
with a particular value?

  I could see this being useful for checking "liveliness" of upstream
realms.  But some providers have dozens, if not hundreds of realms, and
this functionality gets awkward pretty quickly.

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status