RE: Capabilities (was Re: AW: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-04.txt )

["Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Sure,

So if as a minimum using Bernards approach for the location document we
require to have a mechanism for the the Home Server to send a Challenge
requesting the NAS deliver location information.

Great.  That is one part of the capability exchange draft.

The only debate that we are having which is specific to Location is
whether or not the NAS advertizes its location capabilities in the
access request.  Well Bernard thinks no, I think yes.  But regardless of
that specific debate we already have evidence that a mechanism for
advertizing the NAS capability is required -- CUI and Prepaid etc.....

So I think both these abilities are needed.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:12 PM
> To: Avi Lior; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Capabilities (was Re: AW: Review of 
> draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-04.txt )
> 
> Avi Lior writes...
> 
> > BTW this is already in the capability draft...and there it 
> is stronger 
> > then just hints.  Because if the NAS says I support X and 
> the Server 
> > says I want X then the NAS MUST provide X.
> 
> Yes, but I think the current thread is debating whether there 
> is an actual *requirement* for the current capabilities 
> draft, or something like it, or whether a simpler approach 
> would work just as well.
> 

--
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/>