Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Issues 325 and TBD

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:52:10 +0300

Hi,

I think this new server acc state machine solves those problems which I pointed out last week. So it is OK to me. 

br,
JPK 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 07. April 2002 11:51
To: aaa-wg
Cc: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki)
Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issues 325 and TBD

Issue #325 was a proposed modification to the ASR/ASA handling in the
server auth state machine. Issue #TBD is split from #315 and deals with
making the server acct machine stateful (idle/open).

In my previous mail to the list, I proposed a solution to #325. An
attachment to this e-mail has the updated state machine that implements
this solution. Please comment.

The #TBD issue has also been discussed on the list. After some off-line
discussions with the folks who brought this up, I think I now agree that
in some cases one does want to make accounting stateful. However, not in
all situations. Even if the choice is largely done by applications, I
propose that we list the mandatory state machine (stateless) in the base,
but also give an optional state machine that can be used and shared by applications
that want to keep state. The latter state machine is stricter in the sense
that it doesn't accept all 'strings' of accounting requests, but allows state
to be kept. So its use is a tradeoff in losing records under network partition
conditions and knowing the state. Again, the updated state machine has the
modifications and please comment this as well.

Diffs to base-10-2 are also attached.

Jari

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:12:22 +0300

Hi,

I think the Jari's proposal make sense and solve the problems I pointed out
last week. I fully support this proposal.

BR
Marco

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:16:30 +0300

Hi,

It is also OK for me and it is quite clearer the difference between stateful and stateless.

Regards
Elena 

> From: Koskinen Juha-Pekka (NET/Tampere) 
> Sent: 08. April 2002 13:52
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Issues 325 and TBD
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think this new server acc state machine solves those 
> problems which I pointed out last week. So it is OK to me. 
> 
> br,
> JPK 
>