[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Scope of applicability for CUI (was: RE: AW: backwards compa tible introduction of NEW attribute such as CU I)
There maybe others that I am not aware of. But these specific once are the
once that we have seen requests for. I believe these are mentioned in the
draft as request by folks here.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:07 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Scope of applicability for CUI (was: RE: AW:
> backwards compatible introduction of NEW attribute such as CU I)
> Avi Lior writes...
> > I stated this in another email but I want to do it here as well. I
> > think that CUI should be tied down to 3579.
> CUI is only *needed* when User-Name doesn't serve the
> purpose. What are the use cases when User-Name isn't
> sufficient? I think they are:
> A) when the User-Name re-write feature (for accounting
> purposes) obscures the original authentication identity, or
> B) when the RADIUS authentication method is EAP, allowing for
> a "method internal" user identity for authentication, and an
> "anonymous" or "routing-only" value in User-Name.
> These use cases are further restricted to multi-party (e.g. roaming
> consortia) environments, because for deployments where the
> NAS and the Home RADIUS server belong to a single
> administrative entity the Class attribute has been seen to be
> Are there any other relevant use cases?
> to unsubscribe send a message to
> email@example.com with the word 'unsubscribe' in
> a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.