RE: -01 version of Chargeable User Identity

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> This conversation should apply to the capability exchange being proposed by
> another draft.

Or for that matter, perhaps to some existing attributes, no?

> To respond to your comment. What you suggest could work.  It would be best
> though to actually created a new packet for capability exchange. Which has
> other issues.  But failing that, would the NAS advertize its capabilities on
> the first Access-Request that it sends to a particular realm?  But packets
> are not neccesarily routed based on realm.  So there could be some RADIUS
> server that would never learn the capabilities.
>
> But is having a few added bytes in every access accept really that big an
> issue?  I would think not.

I'm not sure it's really an issue either... but it's worth discussing what
we should do in general, since this issue will come up multiple times.
Are we making an exception for CUI, or are we saying "this is the way you
handle backward negotiation" in general?

--
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/>