RE: Scope of applicability for CUI

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Well originally everyone wanted to be compliant to Diameter CC and that is
exactly what we did.

Now ....

I think the current draft works.  It lines up with Diameter CC and also
provides a CUI that looks like NAI.

I thought we were done comparing CUI to Class.  There is no comparison
between these attributes.

I also get the feeling that even if we said what you said to do that someone
out there would still compare CUI to Class.

Avi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 5:35 PM
> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Scope of applicability for CUI
> 
> 
> Avi Lior writes...
>  
> > I am sure some of you folks are amuzed by the number of messages and
> the
> > circular nature that are being generated for an RFC with one
> attribute.
> 
> I'm sure some are.  :-)
> 
> Maybe if we focused on thinking of CUI as an alternate form 
> of User-Name (just like User-Name, except for ...) instead of 
> focusing on comparing and contrasting CUI and Class, it would 
> make the issues clearer.
> 
> Could we generically describe CUI as having the same format 
> and syntax as User-Name, with the difference being that 
> User-Name originates from the end-station (client of the NAS) 
> when used in an Access-Request, has "routing" semantics in 
> Proxy deployments, and can be returned in an Access-Accept 
> with modified content, while CUI originates from the Home AAA 
> server, has no "routing" semantics, and cannot be modified.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>