RE: Proposal: Capabilities Attribute

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

Avi Lior writes...

> Well I think I wasn't making my point clear:

<snip>
 
> The solution we propose would allow for supporting capabilities
introduced
> by SDOs. They would simply assign a Capability number.  So no need to
hide
> your head in the sand.

Well, I think I did understand what you were trying to say... I just
didn't agree.

I guess I'm moderately opposed to complex protocols, with lots of
nuances in option support, sub-options, sub-capabilities and partial
compliance states.  And I'm opposed to using RADIUS to facilitate that
sort of thing.

We are not debating the issue of Prepaid Services, but since you used it
as an example, it does seem to me to be an example of a protocol with
way too much complexity to be successful in broad deployments, involving
more that a very small number of implementations.  It would be better,
IMHO, to have a few "profiles" of compliance, rather than allowing all
the conceivable scenarios.


--
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/>