RE: Response to Issue 46

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

> You have a point, David.  We can add something like this to the draft:
> 
> "
> The CUI represents an chargeable identity as defined by the business
> relationship. Typically the CUI represents the identity of the actual
> user but it may also indicate other chargeable identities such as a 
> group of users."
> 
> Would that address your concern?

That would be fine, as long as it meets with consensus.  If there is a
use case that demands that the CUI maintain a one-to-one mapping to real
users, then this language would be problematic.  OTOH, if there are no
such use cases this language is preferable, as it does not make possibly
unsupported assumptions.

As an editorial nit, is the CUI actually defined by the business
relationship?  Does the CUI syntax appear in a contract for services?
Or is it more accurate to say that "The CUI represents a chargeable
identity as defined by the Home AAA operator, pursuant to the
requirements of business relationships." ?

--
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/>