IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [radext] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt-10

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 09 April 2013 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB31421F8A91; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 06:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2m3YDbOnbpgI; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 06:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD4021F8F33; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 06:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUWQdQdC7yHKPlMbY/0M1Rb6FZ/Kb3Wvj@postini.com; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 06:53:15 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DCC1B89FF; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 06:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B936190061; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 06:53:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 06:53:05 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] [radext] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt-10
Thread-Index: AQHONCshVSG79PrhReiNj3Ln9NlMtJjM2WGAgAAS14D//5W4wIABnQAAgABBMQA=
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:53:04 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077513A36C@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <CAC8SSWtBMyDgShEDofyUjgcBiQ_ttY_DUbDNHnhhnf531+9XXA@mail.gmail.com> <FB413294-CF61-4AD9-AF26-41EC8A30DF37@gmail.com> <5162d5aa.0794420a.2f19.fffff597@mx.google.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775138825@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E184EBA72@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <AC349589-AC7B-442B-9CE8-D7343BC44BCC@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AC349589-AC7B-442B-9CE8-D7343BC44BCC@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <536E2DDED7E1AF499082A21B5D21FCF2@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<radext@ietf.org>" <radext@ietf.org>, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [radext] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt-10
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:53:19 -0000

On Apr 9, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I am after is a note stating that a _client_ must be prepared for a reply from a server that does not provide adequate response/information for all the RADIUS attributes the client included in the request. This is solely meant for the future specifications using the OPTION_RADIUS.

Yes, I think this would improve the document.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email