RE: backwards compatible introduction of NEW attribute such as CU I

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

I agree with you David.

If CUI calls out for Error-Cause then we should put it in the table of
attributes.
  
> As to whether the inclusion of Error-Cause or some other form 
> of missing attribute indication in RADIUS Access-Reject 
> messages should be used as the basis of specifying a general 
> RADIUS capabilities negotiation protocol, IMHO, that's a 
> whole other matter.

Sure.

But Farid and I are leaning away from the need for having a capability
negotiation for CUI. See the latest thread.

--
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/>