Subject: Re: (radius) RFC2139: User-Name should be MUST

From: Aydin Edguer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:42:39 -0500 (EST)

> I will still go for a MUST (at least for Account-STOPs). All the scenarios
> described can be handled by sending an empty string for the User-Name value,
> like many NASes does currently.

What is the point of sending a piece of information that (a) has no content
and that (b) is not backwards compatible with existing equipment and usage?

The only reason why having an empty User-Name is better than having no
User-Name is if your server software is unable to accommodate the absence
of the attribute.  In this case, it would be better to improve the server
software to add an empty User-Name or to otherwise deal with it than to
add noise to the signal.

-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe ietf-radius' in the body of the message.

---

From: "Dale E. Reed Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 13:37:29 -0800

> software to add an empty User-Name or to otherwise deal with it than to

I agree with this 100%.  On the server side we have all had to deal
with this and I don't see any need to change the RFC to a MUST
for it.

-- 
Dale E. Reed Jr.  ([email-masked])
_________________________________________________________________
       IEA Software, Inc.      |  RadiusNT, Emerald, and NT FAQs
 Internet Solutions for Today  |   http://www.iea-software.com
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe ietf-radius' in the body of the message.