I do agree with Bernard that we first need to come to consensus on the problem statement. I think your summary, quoted above, is one reasonable candidate.
After dozens and dozens of messages, there is very little to show for the discussion of Capabilities Solutions, so it's time to take a step backward and focus for a while on The Problem. Let's all take a breather from solution discussions for a while.
I'd note that we've taken this approach before in RADEXT WG, with encouraging results. Discussion on the CUI document seemed hopelessly wedged until we were able to focus on the problem statement, which turned out to be relatively straight forward.
A good problem statement is not just the union of all possible needs; shopping lists make poor design documents. Rather, a good problem statement seeks to get at the one or two core issues, which, if addressed, will enable solution of mutiple important problems.
As a result, the goal in coming up with a problem statement is not to enumerate every possible corner condition and scenario, regardless of relevance; doing so will merely drive the development of as complex and unwieldly a solution as possible.
Rather, the hallmark of a good problem statement is brevity, leading to solutions which do what is necessary and little more.
-- 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/>