RE: CUI - issues addressed in version 3

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

You are right David.  I meant the SDO will choose which CUI type will be
used. One of those types is Opaque.  An SDO will define how to generate the
Opaque value and how long is the validity.  In fact some implemenation of
Opaque may include a timestamp value that declares how long this opaque is
good for.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:52 AM
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: CUI - issues addressed in version 3
> 
> 
> Avi Lior writes...
> 
> > -The SDO will define the format of the CUI; and
> > -When the CUI is an opaque value, it will define how long 
> it is valid
> for.
> 
> I thought that the CUI draft defined the *format* of the 
> Chargeable-User-ID attribute.  No?
> 
> Other SDOs are certainly free to specify or recommend the 
> values of CUI or lifetime, but I believe that the format 
> (syntax and semantics) of standard RADIUS attributes needs to 
> be defined in [Standards Track] RFCs.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>