[Dime] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA allocations for RFC 5447 (attributes 124 and 125)

"Amanda Baber via RT" <iana-matrix@iana.org> Mon, 13 August 2018 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <iana-shared@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A82E1310EE; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 15:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.178
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sJlT-NnrT4bW; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 15:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.46.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FEE81310D8; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 15:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from request4.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp01.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B39E0445; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 22:35:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by request4.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 39A2020705; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 22:35:04 +0000 (UTC)
RT-Owner: amanda.baber
From: "Amanda Baber via RT" <iana-matrix@iana.org>
Reply-To: iana-matrix@iana.org
In-Reply-To: <A54682E8-B80C-4992-877C-218B492882E3@deployingradius.com>
References: <RT-Ticket-1118137@icann.org> <1650f1cabeb.100024af647180.2934901912766753218@ovsienko.info> <A54682E8-B80C-4992-877C-218B492882E3@deployingradius.com>
Message-ID: <rt-4.4.3-25876-1534199704-328.1118137-7-0@icann.org>
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA
X-RT-Ticket: IANA #1118137
X-Managed-BY: RT 4.4.3 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
X-RT-Originator: amanda.baber@icann.org
CC: radext@ietf.org, lionel.morand@orange.com, kaduk@mit.edu, dime@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 22:35:04 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/lni5hBVwNy1U_a7-eOfHecu4cUE>
Subject: [Dime] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA allocations for RFC 5447 (attributes 124 and 125)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 22:35:08 -0000

Hi all,

These RADIUS Attribute Type registrations now read as follows:

Value: 124
Description: MIP6-Feature-Vector
Data Type: integer64
Reference: [RFC5447]

Value: 125
Description: MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix
Data Type: string
Reference: [RFC5447]

Please see
https://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types

These updates were made after we received confirmation from Lionel Morand and Benjamin Kaduk.

Best regards,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

On Mon Aug 06 13:00:05 2018, aland@deployingradius.com wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 8:01 AM, Denis Ovsienko <denis@ovsienko.info>
> wrote:
> > Recently I was reviewing some code that adds support for two RFC 5447
> > RADIUS AVPs below:
> >
> > The MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP (AVP Code 125) is of type OctetString
> > The MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP (AVP Code 124) is of type Unsigned64 and
> >
> > It turned out, the current RADIUS Types registry at
> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types/radius-types.xhtml
> > lists both attributes with wrong types:
> >
> > 125   MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix   ipv6prefix      [RFC5447]
> 
> That is definitely wrong.  The "ipv6prefix" format is different than
> the one used by MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix in RFC 5337.
> 
> > 124   MIP6-Feature-Vector     string  [RFC5447]
> 
> That issue is a bit different.  64-bit integers were defined in RFC
> 6929 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6929#section-2.5) long after RFC
> 5447 was published.
> 
> So at the time RFC 5447 was published, "string" was the correct
> definition.
> 
> > Those incorrect types had propagated from the IANA registry into
> > FreeRADIUS and Wireshark (both have been fixed now for MIP6-Home-
> > Link-Prefix, see the discussion and the follow-ups at
> > https://github.com/the-tcpdump-group/tcpdump/pull/636 if interested).
> >
> > Having studied this discrepancy thoroughly, I had concluded the AVP
> > definitions are correct in RFC 5447, so I did not file an erratum.
> > The problem seems to be with those IANA allocations only. Could
> > somebody review this issue and put the IANA allocations right?
> 
> In the end, I think that the incorrect IANA allocations were a result
> of the updates done in RFC 8044.  The early drafts had a table which
> updated all of the IANA data types, e.g.:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-05#section-4.2
> 
> The MIP6 attributes are listed there as "ipv6prefix" and "string".  As
> the author of RFC 8044, I think that's my mistake.  Updating hundreds
> of attributes required reading many RFCs, and it's understandable that
> a few mistakes were made.
> 
> Unless there are objections from DIME or RADEXT, I think it would be
> best for IANA to update the registry as follows:
> 
> 125     MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix   string  [RFC5447]
> 124     MIP6-Feature-Vector     integer64       [RFC5447]
> 
> We may need approval from the AD (Ben).  Explicit consensus from the
> WG would also be helpful.
> 
> Alan DeKok.