Re: Deployment (Was: Re: NAI decoration: User Identity issues)

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

Avi Lior wrote:

> I think the MUST should be changed to SHOULD and thus not requiring any
> changes to NASes.

I can see the "legal" distinction between a MUST and a SHOULD, but
wouldn't the change still be needed in practise on the NASes, before
this functionality becomes operational?

In fact, I'd be happy even with a MUST -- NASes that don't support
that MUST don't support this particular RFC, which is of course
perfectly legal...

> In a situtaion where a NAS does not support this attribute yet an
> Intermediary needed to correlate accounting to the User-Alias-Identity, the
> Intermediary would insert the Class attribute in the Access Accept and if
> the NAS supported the Class attribute, problem solved.

I think the NASes must support the Class attribute if they are
compliant with RFC 2865/66.

Anyway, I think your compatibility scheme works. I just wish
we didn't need to have alternative modes of operation.

--Jari

--
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/>