Re: [Dime] [ALU] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02

I guess the safest thing to do here is to continue to reference RFC2486 with END_USER_NAI in Subscription-Id-Type,
and specify RFC7542 for the new Subscription-Id-NAI AVP.

Even though I suspect that in practice non-ASCII is being used in Subscription-Id-Type with END_USER_NAI.

From: Dave Dolson [mailto:ddolson@sandvine.com]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 7:40 AM
To: Yuval Lifshitz; Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR/Nozay); jouni korhonen; dime@ietf.org list
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org; Yuval Lifshitz
Subject: Re: [ALU] [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02

If nodes accept RFC7542 in END_USER_NAI, is anything broken?
Can we say "MAY accept..."?

David Dolson
Sandvine
From: Yuval Lifshitz
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:01 AM
To: Dave Dolson; Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR/Nozay); jouni korhonen; dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org> list
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org>; Yuval Lifshitz
Subject: RE: [ALU] [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02

Following 3 issues are noted in appendix A of RFC4282:

   o  International character set support has been added for both
      usernames and realms.  Note that this implies character codes 128
      - 255 may be used in the username portion, which may be
      unacceptable to nodes that only support RFC 2486<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2486>.  Many devices
      already allow this behaviour, however.

   o  Username privacy support has been added.  Note that NAIs without a
      username (for privacy) may not be acceptable to RFC 2486<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2486>-compliant
      nodes.  Many devices already allow this behaviour, however.

   o  A recommendation to support NAI length of at least 253 octets has
      been added, and compatibility considerations among NAI lengths in
      this specification and various AAA protocols are discussed.  Note
      that long NAIs may not be acceptable to RFC 2486<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2486>-compliant nodes.

And from appendix A of RFC7542 (as you noted):

*  The formal syntax in Section 2.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7542#section-2.1> has been updated to forbid

      non-UTF-8 characters (e.g., characters with the "high bit" set).

This means that there is incompatibility in both directions between RFC2486 and RFC7542.
Therefore, if we want to preserver compatibility between RFC4006 and RFC4006bis, would suggest to use the new format only in the newly added AVP.

From: Dave Dolson
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:10 PM
To: Yuval Lifshitz; Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR/Nozay); jouni korhonen; dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org> list
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org>; Yuval Lifshitz
Subject: RE: [ALU] [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02

Without digging too deeply, it seems the jump directly from RFC2486 to RFC7542 is backwards compatible, since UTF-8 is backwards compatible with 7-bit ASCII.

The gray area seems to be the binary encoding.  Any RFC2486 string may include a binary value from %x00-7F, as I read it.

So, we could say senders SHOULD conform to RFC7542, and receivers MAY accept RFC7542-invalid strings for backwards compatibility.

As I see it, operators require UTF-8 strings, and are probably already using them, so we should update the END_USER_NAI.

-Dave

From: Yuval Lifshitz [mailto:ylifshitz@sandvine.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 10:08 AM
To: Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR/Nozay); jouni korhonen; dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org> list
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org>; Yuval Lifshitz
Subject: RE: [ALU] [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02

Maryse and All,
Seems like RFC4282<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282> was also obsoleted (in 2015) by RFC7542<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7542>. And as noted in Appendix A of both RFC4282 and RFC7542 they modified their predecessors in non-backward-compatible manner.
We should probably make the change only in the new AVP, so there is no compatibility issue with existing RFC4006 elements?

Yuval

From: Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR/Nozay) [mailto:maryse.gardella@nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:32 PM
To: jouni korhonen; dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org> list
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [ALU] [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02

Hello all,

One comment on the reference for the NAI format:

In the existing:

8.47<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02#section-8.47>.  Subscription-Id-Type AVP

END_USER_NAI 3

   The identifier is in the form of a Network Access Identifier, as

   defined in [RFC2486].

And the newly created :

8.62<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02#section-8.62>.  Subscription-Id-NAI AVP

   The Subscription-Id-NAI (AVP Code TBD11) is of type UTF8String.  The

   Subscription-Id-NAI AVP contains the identifier in the form of a

   Network Access Identifier, as defined in [RFC2486<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2486>].

The reference is RFC 2486, however it is obsoleted by RFC 4282. Also RFC 6733 (which is the DBP reference now for RFC4006bis) refers to RFC 4282.

BR

Maryse

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of jouni korhonen
Sent: lundi 17 avril 2017 08:01
To: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org> list <dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>>
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org>
Subject: [ALU] [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02

Folks,

This email starts a 2 week WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02. The WGLC ends 4/30/17 23:59 pacific time.

Submit your comments to issue tracker (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dime/newticket) and to mailing list. If you think the document needs no work and is ready, express that also on the list. Silence does not count as acceptance.

- Jouni & Lionel

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime