RE: Comments on draft-adrangi-radius-extension-for-pwlan-00.txt

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
Jari wrote:

  o  I dislike the Sect 2.2 string syntax, as it is hard
     to make this really work in a consistent manner across
     vendors and organizations. A standardized bit pattern
     approach would be better, IMHO. Then again, I'm not sure
     whether we should really extend RADIUS with a feature
     capabilities discovery.

Avi's reply:

A bit mask maybe a better approach.

Capability advertizing is important in certain situations such a prepaid.
We need to be able to ensure that AAA server can make policy decision based
on the capabilities that are supported by the NAS.  In prepaid we need to
know whether the NAS can actually do that 'counting' and enforce the policy
that is required.  If the NAS did not then the AAA can decide on a different
tack for providing service to a prepaid client.  For example it can ask the
NAS to tunnel the client to another device that can enforce the policy.

We also need to know whether the NAS supports POD or COA (3576) messages.
Again this is improtant for prepaid etc....

Whether or not this is standardized or not it is important for the prepaid
feature and hence its also part of the prepaid draft.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>