Subject: [radext] #121: inconsistent formulation

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:49:36 -0000

#121: inconsistent formulation

 In Section 2.2 when defining M (More) field:

 >     If a client or server receives an attribute fragment with the "More"
 field set (1), but for which no subsequent fragment can be found, then the
 fragmented attribute is deemed to be an "invalid attribute", and handled
 as per Section 2.7, below.

 To be consistent with previous text: s/is deemed to be/MUST be deemed to
 be/

 I actually would prefer 'considered' to 'deemed' in all places, but this
 is a minor language preference of a non-English speaker.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  dromasca@…   |      Owner:  draft-ietf-radext-radius-
     Type:  defect       |  extensions@…
 Priority:  minor        |     Status:  new
Component:  radius-      |  Milestone:  milestone1
  extensions             |    Version:  1.0
 Severity:  In WG Last   |   Keywords:
  Call                   |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/121>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>

_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext