RE: Issue: Transparency (e.g. NAS visibility of) CUI

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

> Infact, I think that only the oqaque value should have been placed in
the
> draft in the first place.  SDOs then can define what format they want
to
> use.

I completely disagree.  This is the sort of loose definition that has
caused interoperability issues with RADIUS in the past.

This attribute should not be viewed as an "opaque transport mechanism"
for SDOs and individual vendors to create proprietary, non-interoperable
implementations that appear to have the imprimatur of IETF
standardization.

> One it allows the home network to create a handle for the user that is
> private. It's a number that represents the user for a period of time.

Hmmm...  I'm confused.  Is the CUI private to the Home AAA server?  In
that case Class will do as well, so I think this cannot be a valid
justification.

> As well, the opaque value allows an SDO to define another format for
the
> CUI without the need to go to the IETF.

Which, IMHO, is a Bad Thing (tm).  At least without some form of IETF
action, such as Expert Review, as part of the IANA considerations
section.



--
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/>