RE: Scope of applicability for CUI

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

I agree. The intent of this draft was not to make the CUI broadly required.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barney Wolff [mailto:barney@databus.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 1:44 AM
> To: Avi Lior
> Cc: 'Nelson, David'; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Scope of applicability for CUI
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 06:14:09PM -0500, Avi Lior wrote:
> > 
> > We already mention in the document that CUI is useable when EAP is 
> > used and in particular when EAP methods hide the user identity.
> > 
> > What I am opposed to is mandating that the only case for 
> CUI is tied 
> > to the use of EAP. Operationaly it does not depend on EAP. 
> There could 
> > be other uses in the future.  So the current text in the draft is 
> > sufficient.
> 
> To me, the crucial issue is when support for CUI is 
> *required*.  I'm perfectly comfortable with people finding 
> other uses for CUI, in environments where it's already 
> supported or where all parties agree to support it.  I would 
> oppose making it a requirement for RADIUS compatibility in 
> "traditional" environments - but I don't think anyone so far 
> has done that.
> 
> If a particular proxy owner wants to demand CUI support as a 
> condition of doing business, it certainly has the right to do 
> so.  It may or may not be wise business policy.  That's for 
> the market to determine, if we are wise and make CUI support 
> strictly optional.
> 
> Barney
> 
> -- 
> Barney Wolff         http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
> I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via 
> the 'Net.
> 

--
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/>