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

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

Avi Lior writes...

> Family members may have one username for example:
papabear@example.com,
> mamabear@example.com etc,, while the billing identity is
> thebearfamily@example.com.  The billing identity may be required
outside
> the home network.

Snipping the other example use cases for the sake of brevity.

Great.  Specific use cases are far more helpful than generalized
posturing.

I can see that your examples may be of utility in certain deployments.
Given that some of these examples entail semantics (i.e. required
actions) at the NAS beyond the requirement to include the CUI in future
*-Request messages, it would be helpful if these requirements were
documented, somewhere.  The CUI draft may be an obvious place, but it
could be some other document.  In the interests of global
interoperability, it would be helpful if anyone reading the RFC(s) on
CUI could understand all the standardized uses, and implement NAS
firmware that interoperates in a multi-vendor deployment.

All that I'm asking for, I guess, is full documentation of the intended
uses of the new attribute.  Undocumented uses lead to poor
interoperability.  Of course, undocumented uses may also lead to
product-specific competitive differentiators.  We need to carefully
weigh the interests of multi-vendor interoperability in writing
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/>