IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 05 April 2013 13:12 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 994B121F9781; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 06:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 wBvtthUxhxTU; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 06:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og113.obsmtp.com (exprod7og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0823521F9780; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 06:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob113.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUV7Nuz/NQsNMTLeEBg1BCHTX7tVbJivZ@postini.com; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:12:28 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 BCEB4108195; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 06:12:27 -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 B19F319005D; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 06:12:27 -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; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 06:12:27 -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: AQHOMc3xheg1Y2HRokOypXMokVkn6ZjH9y6AgAAS5ACAAAYcAA==
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:12:27 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775132F65@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <B51C71CC-654D-43F3-A50A-321C171CD562@gmail.com> <515D7B4D.7090201@deployingradius.com> <515db052.24fa440a.4c16.ffff93c2@mx.google.com> <515DBD38.2020607@deployingradius.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775131DB4@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <515DE629.6070706@deployingradius.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775132294@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <515DE957.1060202@deployingradius.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775132374@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <9992DCA7-FFB3-4328-A8FC-266109BDD059@gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775132B92@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CFE49718-CB57-4D90-8843-F5E0BD57BF49@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFE49718-CB57-4D90-8843-F5E0BD57BF49@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="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1ADC18F33AA52545BAADE6583215783D@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<radext@ietf.org>" <radext@ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
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: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:12:28 -0000

On Apr 5, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Blindly dropping an attribute might not work in all cases. For example, in
> some cases the server might not then be able to provide all information
> the relay needs..

Well, I did say "silently ignored," not "dropped," but yeah.   If the server doesn't support that attribute, it's not going to have any effect anyway.   It seems like silently ignoring it is better than dropping the whole message, although I suppose you could argue the opposite, since a misconfiguration of this sort is probably something the administrator wants to fix immediately, not discover by accident years later.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email