Re: Capabilities: Moving forward - to the problem, please

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

Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> wrote:
> If we want to solve the general problem that the NAS and server
> belonging to two different administrations need to understand what
> features of RADIUS each supports and requires, we should be looking
> for solutions that solve the general problem, while also solving
> the specific problems we know about today.

  I'm working on a "capabilities model" draft.  It's pretty rough
right now, but it should cover the general scenario.

  Some assumptions: Both NAS & server have capabilities.  Each may try
to discover the capabilities of each other.  The capability
information is exchanged via advertisements in packets.  The NAS
initiates the conversation.  The server cannot negotiate capabilities
with the NAS if the NAS capabilities do not include "capability
negotiation".  RADIUS conversations do not currently include
capability advertisement.

  A *lot* of conclusions come from those assumptions, including the
ones presented in my previous message.  I also believe that those
assumptions are reasonable, and are taken from discussions on this list.

  If anyone disagrees with one or more of those assumptions, I'd love
to hear it.

  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/>