[tac_plus] Should optional A/V pair be sent?

[Jathan McCollum]

On the server side, that makes sense. Thanks for confirming! :) I will take
this back to Brocade to request that they send the attribute they are
requiring for successful authorization.

As for devices that freak out when they receive optional AVP, if anyone can
think of any that would be helpful! I have a large environment with many
and varied devices that are so ancient there is no hope of getting some
kind of firmware bug corrected. :)

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:23 PM, heasley <heas at shrubbery.net> wrote:

> handling of optional AVs is coded as 'if the nas didnt send it (as
> mandatory or optional), then the daemon does not send it'.
>
> the ancient ietf draft does not make this necessary.  its only assertion
> is that both sides must ignore optional AVs if they do not support them:
>
>   The arguments in both a REQUEST and a RESPONSE can be specified as
>   either mandatory or optional. An optional argument is one that may or
>   may not be used, modified or even understood by the recipient.
>
> ISTR someone mentioning on this list that some device of theirs threw a
> fit if it received an optional AVP that it didnt understand.  Perhaps
> daniel?
>



-- 
Jathan.
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.shrubbery.net/pipermail/tac_plus/attachments/20120125/aec67250/attachment.html>