IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Wed, 08 February 2023 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns.all@virtual.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 185A9C1524B3; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 13:30:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0C6C151542; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 13:30:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8OKjEGQvgsxs; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 13:30:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1185C1524B3; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 13:30:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (135-23-95-173.cpe.pppoe.ca [135.23.95.173]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CA87377; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 21:29:56 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4196BB5D2805639398D344B5B5D89@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 16:29:54 -0500
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns.all@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D3217DE3-0A04-4CE4-AC83-9F5F957CB78B@deployingradius.com>
References: <BY5PR11MB4196E89DEC6393A84923CC17B5E59@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <EDA5C486-7261-4668-ABF0-83871D9E1E2B@deployingradius.com> <BY5PR11MB4196BB5D2805639398D344B5B5D89@BY5PR11MB4196.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Resent-From: alias-bounces@ietf.org
Resent-To: rwilton@cisco.com, kondtir@gmail.com, bevolz@gmail.com, jclarke@cisco.com, zhoutianran@huawei.com, aland@freeradius.org, warren@kumari.net, dhcwg@ietf.org, henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20230208213007.185A9C1524B3@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 13:30:07 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/HvNObVcmCYPrJximnUvaGaZTizM>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 21:30:07 -0000

On Feb 8, 2023, at 2:38 PM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> To give a regular configuration example, if you were to enable the Ethernet auto-negotiation protocol but also explicitly configure an 10/100/1000 Ethernet interface to run at 100 Mb/s then I would expect the explicit client provided configuration to take precedence over negotiating the speed value.
> 
> It sounds like, in what you describe, the configuration is effectively hierarchical.  I.e., it is really because the RADIUS supplied configuration is more-specific that it takes precedence over the local configuration.  If so, that is expected, but I think that it would be helpful to clarify the description to make that clear.

  OK, thanks.

>>  It's a limitation of RADIUS.  Everything RADIUS has to support 4K packets.
>> Later RFCs allow for 64K packets.
> [Rob Wilton (rwilton)] 
> 
> Okay.  If this will be obvious to everyone implementing/deploying RADIUS then fine, otherwise it might be worth including an informative reference to the RFC that increases the limit to 64K.

  This is RFC 7930.  Packet size limitations will be obvious to everyone implementing RADIUS.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email