RE: NAI decoration: User Identity issues

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Hi David,

As related to my previous comments, RADIUS is a hop by hop protocol not an
end to end protocol.

So a MUST may not work here.  A SHOULD would probably work.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:23 PM
> To: Bernard Aboba; Avi Lior
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: NAI decoration: User Identity issues
> 
> 
> > And if intermediaries decorate this attribute then you have 
> > re-introduced all the problems that already existed with User-Name.
> 
> It would seem to me that in order to function as a billing 
> reconciliation mechanism (see Roy Albert's response) such an attribute
> (User-Alias) MUST NOT be decorated or modified by intermediaries.
> 
> Could someone please review the technical (and business) 
> reasons that State could not serve this requirement?  Is it 
> that State is supposed to be an opaque object?  Is it that 
> State is not required to contain printable ASCII suitable for 
> inclusion on billing statements?
 

--
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/>