RE: Mandating 3579 and 2486bis for CUI was RE: Scope of applicability for CUI

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Avi Lior writes...

> Please demonstrate why this MUST ONLY work if the NAS only deployed
EAP
> AND 2486.

Unless we are using EAP/Anonymous authentication, please explain why
Chargeable-User-ID ought not to be *identical* to User-Name?  I
understand that an implementation *could* make them arbitrarily
different, but assuming that real authentication using visible identity
is taking place, why would there be an over-riding *need* for these
attributes to differ?  

Once someone explains the new use case where this makes any sense, then
we might want to add that use case to the scope of applicability for
CUI.  The argument that some operator someday might come up with a good
reason does not convince me.  The fact that one *can* do something is
never, IMHO, a good reason that one *should* do it.  :-)

I'm beginning to suspect that we may need to simply "agree to disagree"
on this point.



--
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/>