RE: Capabilities negotiation problem statement

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

Bernard Aboba writes...

> Given all of this -- what is the problem statement for Capabilities
> Negotiation, and how does it differ from the problem statement for
> Mandatory/Optional attributes?

I think the only issues that may not be addressed by the Mandatory bit
(which, BTW, does not yet have WG consensus) that may require some
additional text would be proxy chain and roaming consortium scenarios.
If the Mandatory bit is hop-by-hop, then a Proxy Considerations section
will likely be required to describe behavior in those kinds of
deployments.  Avi's draft intends to cover end-to-end capabilities
advertisement.  If the Mandatory bit can be made end-to-end, or suitable
behavior in roaming deployments can be described, then maybe we don't
need capabilities advertisement.


--
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/>