IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 05 April 2013 14:27 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 2A10C21F97D0; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:27:54 -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 7yJI0pjmNO6I; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og128.obsmtp.com (exprod7og128.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.121]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935F921F97B6; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob128.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUV7faWWlOSpc3c9slrXFrKCWDQY/uiqQ@postini.com; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 07:27:53 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 178F61B8225; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:27:53 -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 0DAAA19005D; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:27:53 -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 07:27:53 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] [radext] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt-10
Thread-Index: AQHOMc3xheg1Y2HRokOypXMokVkn6ZjH9y6AgAAS5ACAAAYcAIAAEe+AgAADJAA=
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:27:52 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077513327A@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> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775132F65@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <515EDCC7.5010708@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <515EDCC7.5010708@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: <2E75FA08C390B04A814EB664E28B07C1@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<radext@ietf.org>" <radext@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: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:27:54 -0000

On Apr 5, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Server MAY ignore received RADIUS attributes that it does not support."
> seems like a reasonable text here. Some implementors will ignore unknown
> attribute, some may produce a warning and some my try to handle it in a
> generic way.

Generally speaking, this sort of language is a recipe for attack.   I think the draft should just say that the administrator should be able to update the list of acceptable options.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email