RE: Clearinghouse/Aggregator Support for CUI

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Alan,

I don't think that it is appropriate to mention this in the draft. Also note
that based on my recollections, the Diameter CC, which uses the same
attribute does not give examples.

Operators and SDO that would use the Opaque value would typically have their
own security review.

Furthermore when thinking about how one might do this, there are many
factors to consider and these factors are specific to deployments.  So I am
not sure if we came up with an example it would have general applicability.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@ox.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:41 AM
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Clearinghouse/Aggregator Support for CUI
> 
> 
> "Adrangi, Farid" <farid.adrangi@intel.com> wrote:
> > Regarding to a suggested "best practices" for format, are you 
> > suggesting that the draft should recommend one of the specified 
> > formats, or suggest a format for the "opaque string"?
> 
>   I'm suggesting that a method and format for "hiding" user 
> information in the opaque string be part of the draft.  Not 
> as a standard, but as a suggestion.
> 
>   That will allow the format to be peer reviewed for 
> potential problems, and will encourage implementors to use a 
> peer-reviewed method, rather than home-grown solutions.
> 
>   Alan DeKok.
> 
> --
> 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/>
> 

--
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/>