Re: Capabilities Proposals

[Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:24:58PM -0800, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > I don't believe a capabilities attribute is required for CUI.  The last
> > scheme I'm aware of for CUI has the proxy or NAS that requires CUI signal
> > that by including a NUL CUI attribute in its Access-Request.  Since CUI
> > is never needed by the server, the server has no need to know whether
> > the sender of an Access-Request that does not include the CUI does not
> > support CUI or merely does not require it.
> 
> I think this is different from the situation of NAS-Filter-Rule where the
> NAS is not requiring its use, only the RADIUS server might need/want it.
> So the difference is that with CUI the NAS is advertising that it REQUIRES
> CUI, whereas with NAS-Filter-Rule the NAS would be advertising that it
> SUPPORTS the attribute -- it is the RADIUS server that would require
> support.
> 
> Therefore I think that even if we had a Capabilities attribute it is not
> clear that the semantics of that attribute would be appropriate for use
> with CUI.
> 
> Am I stating the case correctly?

Yes, if the Capabilities attribute does not itself distinguish between
supported and required attributes.  I had suggested that as possibly
being worth two bits per attribute, but did not hear widespread
enthusiasm in response.

Regards,
Barney

-- 
Barney Wolff         http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.

--
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/>