Re: Capabilities Proposals

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> I don't believe a capabilities attribute is required for CUI.  The last
> scheme I'm aware of for CUI has the proxy or NAS that requires CUI signal
> that by including a NUL CUI attribute in its Access-Request.  Since CUI
> is never needed by the server, the server has no need to know whether
> the sender of an Access-Request that does not include the CUI does not
> support CUI or merely does not require it.

I think this is different from the situation of NAS-Filter-Rule where the
NAS is not requiring its use, only the RADIUS server might need/want it.
So the difference is that with CUI the NAS is advertising that it REQUIRES
CUI, whereas with NAS-Filter-Rule the NAS would be advertising that it
SUPPORTS the attribute -- it is the RADIUS server that would require
support.

Therefore I think that even if we had a Capabilities attribute it is not
clear that the semantics of that attribute would be appropriate for use
with CUI.

Am I stating the case correctly?

--
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/>