Vijay K. Gurbani writes...
> - S1: The last two paragraphs of this section compare some terms used
> in this draft against similar terms in SNMP. I am curious: why
> the explicit call-out and comparison of these terms in SNMP? Does
> SNMP have a special relationship to this draft that requires that a
> difference be explicitly established vis-a-vis certain terms?
The text that you question was added in response to an issue raised during
AD Review of the draft by Dan Romascanu. The text is adapted from that
suggested by Juergen Schoenwaelder, chair of the ISMS WG. The ISMS WG has a
particular interest in this document.
> I just found that more distracting then helpful. Of course, you
> may have a valid enough reason for this comparison, and if so,
> providing the reason to the reader will help in setting up
> the context.
I tend to agree that without the discussion context the purpose of the
distinction in terms is not very clear. Perhaps some context ought to be
provided.
> - S5.3: Below the figure, the Length is shown as ">= 3". However,
> the Text field expects "one or more octets..." Should not the
> Length then be ">= 1"?
In RADIUS, the Length field of the Type, Length, Value (TLV) tuple includes
the Type and Length octets in the count. If the Value is one octet in
length, the Length field would be 3. See RFC 2865 Section 5, which reads,
in part:
Length
The Length field is one octet, and indicates the length of this
Attribute including the Type, Length and Value fields.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
