Re: Capabilities: Summary

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

"Avi Lior" <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> wrote:
> So forgive me but, the approach of advetizing takes the quess work out
> of the protocol and  I don't understand why we need to discuss this
> issue over and over again.

  My only concern with advertising is the possibility of an endless
list of things to advertise.

  Authentication protocols that already use Access-Challenge can be
extended to have the server request information in an
Access-Challenge, and the NAS supply it in a later Access-Request.  I
don't think there's any argument there.

  The only issue, then, is around authentication protocols such as
PAP, CHAP, or MS-CHAP.  Adding an additional Access-Challenge step is
awkward, just as adding capability advertising is awkward.

  So, is using capabilities with PAP, etc. a requirement?

  If so, is *any* capability advertising scheme acceptable to the WG?
(My $0.02 is yes)

  If so, what should it look like?

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>