[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Scope of applicability for CUI
I agree. The intent of this draft was not to make the CUI broadly required.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barney Wolff [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 1:44 AM
> To: Avi Lior
> Cc: 'Nelson, David'; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Scope of applicability for CUI
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 06:14:09PM -0500, Avi Lior wrote:
> > We already mention in the document that CUI is useable when EAP is
> > used and in particular when EAP methods hide the user identity.
> > What I am opposed to is mandating that the only case for
> CUI is tied
> > to the use of EAP. Operationaly it does not depend on EAP.
> There could
> > be other uses in the future. So the current text in the draft is
> > sufficient.
> To me, the crucial issue is when support for CUI is
> *required*. I'm perfectly comfortable with people finding
> other uses for CUI, in environments where it's already
> supported or where all parties agree to support it. I would
> oppose making it a requirement for RADIUS compatibility in
> "traditional" environments - but I don't think anyone so far
> has done that.
> If a particular proxy owner wants to demand CUI support as a
> condition of doing business, it certainly has the right to do
> so. It may or may not be wise business policy. That's for
> the market to determine, if we are wise and make CUI support
> strictly optional.
> Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
> I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via
> the 'Net.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.