Re: -01 version of Chargeable User Identity

[Greg Weber <gdweber@cisco.com>]

> > I agree.  So, I think the proposal was that NAS advertises its support
> > for the new attribute by sending a nul CUI.  And, the RADIUS will have
> > the option to reject the request in the absence of the CUI.  Do you see
> > any problem with respect to overhead resulting from the CUI
> > advertisement here?
> 
> Overhead is not the issue -- the null CUI attribute will only require 2
> octets.

The overhead is a potential issue if we are introducing
a precedent that might be followed by many attributes
in the future.  The current suggestion seems to be that
_every_ Access-Request contain this advertisement (cf once
per NAS which might be more reflective of capability).

Greg



--
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/>