Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Request for closure on issue 235

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:55:52 -0600

Barney Wolff [[email-masked]] wrote:

>Do people believe generating the D-bit reliably is a trivial burden on
>the sender?  If so then it does no harm, because the receiver can
>always ignore it.  But I don't think it's that trivial.  

Why not? I am not sure I understand what complexity you see. It is
some implementation effort, no doubt, but is not extremely complex.

>As a receiver
>I'd be very wary of depending on the sender to trigger the dup check.
>

If the senders are required to mark the "D" bit if they are potential
duplicates, the receiver could rely on the sender to trigger the
duplicate checks. So I believe it is a matter of specification and
compliance to specification w.r.t the behavior of the sender.

>Barney

-Basavaraj

---

From: Barney Wolff <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:53:09 -0500

Consider gateways from RADIUS or other AAA protocols.  Consider a rebooting
NAS - is it sure what it might have sent before it crashed?

As a sender, what's my liability because you as receiver double
charged or locked out some customer because I failed to set the
D-bit and you relied on my perfection?  Guess what - if it's not
$0.00 I'm going to set the D-bit on *every* record.

Barney