Skip to main content

Common Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and Suggested Fixes
RFC 5080

Yes

(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(David Ward)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

Yes (2007-09-04)
> The CPE may also require a delegated prefix for its own use, if it is
> decrementing the Time To Live (TTL) field of IP headers.  In that
> case, it should be delegated a prefix by the NAS via the Delegated-
> IPv6-Prefix attribute.  [RFC4818].  If the CPE is not decrementing
> TTL, it does not require a delegated prefix.

Time To Live is called Hop Limit in IPv6, and since this is
an IPv6 specific Section, perhaps this is the name that you
should use.

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-07-05)
Editorial:
>   inclusion of an Event-Timestampt attribute, for example, then
s/Event-Timestampt/Event-Timestamp/

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-07-05)
I am concerned about how this draft seems to break the ability to
negotiate future extensions.  In particular the recommendation that
client should treat access-accept with unknown attributes as
access-reject seems problematic.  However this issue seems to have
been discussed sufficiently so this is only a comment.

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-07-03)
I personally find this text in the last sentence in section 2.1.1 to be unclear:

"neither including an authentication attribute nor a Service-Type attribute"

I suggest rewriting this sentence, deleting the double negative for clarity.