Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: NASREQ-14: Interim vs. Start Stop record when Reuathentication/Re uathorization

From: David Mitton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 10:50:39 -0500

On 2/19/2004 05:52 PM -0500, Avi Lior wrote:
>Interim vs. Start Stop record when Reuathentication/Reuathorization
>Submitter name: Avi Lior
>Submitter email address: [email-masked]
>Date first submitted: February 19th 2004
>Reference:
>Document: NASREQ-14
>Comment type: Technical
>Priority: S
>Section: 2.2
>Rationale/Explanation of issue:
>
>According to NASREQ-14 every change in authentication or authorization
>MUST generate an Accounting-Record-Type of INTERIM_RECORD.
>
>Requested changes:
>
>I belive that changes caused by re-authentication or authorization
>should cause a new session to begin and therefor a STOP_RECORD followed
>by a START_RECORD MUST be generated.
>
>Besides INTERIM_RECORDS may be disabled. So if the text stands then at
>least state that accounting interim would be sent regardless of whether
>the server has enabled interims or not.

I disagree.  I would like to hear other points of view on this.

A connection oriented service may not care about such changes, infact they 
may not be changes at all, just a re-affirmation of the intended and 
authorized service.

Thus I don't think a START or a STOP is appropriate.

Similarly, I am perplexed by the nature of the comment "INTERIM_RECORDS may 
be disabled"

Perhaps the periodic generation of ACR messages with type=INTERIM_RECORD 
may not be enabled.  But I don't see anything in either RADIUS or Diameter 
that restricts this type of Accounting message to only that usage.  They 
should always be valid to send.

Would it be more acceptable, to some, if we create yet another Accounting 
Status-Type for (possible) Change-of-Service?

Dave.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:56:04 -0800 (PST)

> I disagree.  I would like to hear other points of view on this.

We encountered this issue in RFC 3576 due to addition of the dynamic
authorization capabilities.  However, I don't believe we clearly specified
what types of RADIUS accounting messages should be sent as a result of an
authorization change.

> Thus I don't think a START or a STOP is appropriate.

I would agree for a re-authentication.  However, I'm not so sure about a
change in authorizations.  This could have implications for rating.  At
least in RADIUS, there is typically an assumption that INTERIM records are
not retransmitted as aggressively.

> Status-Type for (possible) Change-of-Service?

I think this could complicate the RADIUS/Diameter gateway functionality.
I'd prefer to make this work similarly in both RADIUS and DIAMETER.