IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emu] EAP and Fragmentation

slon v sobstvennom palto <slonvpalto@gmail.com> Fri, 15 March 2019 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <slonvpalto@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6B5129284 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Yfx8EaYqXnA1 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1464712705F for <emu@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com with SMTP id w26so3307523vsk.13 for <emu@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9b4ijC+cAYfToIrj9eHoqP212D75Zb1o0TkRsY0LXvQ=; b=c/bIGrb1kCUFv8wOV0VppAPhEtpU5pn1bTUfsw5fwwv++gaRS1Z775nPQWWsvEgFBK QAz9lGwQUBmyUjO5/J7GgdaGfBDpEL9+sJ92qV7zuBszkx1Qcd1G/jXU4qPcTO4o0HDb paKDkJvvDB5d3uHWAmKjpbpvyo7Exf81lm3sb61GILNs4OnLYe8lN2fhx8ixXszmqzYi wLoA1NxzcU7P3DnFu6odiM4Iffdg1hW0CXMvP9MSH0uwwsv+K8wzIHx+yDnqwo8Aj9WC Mews59lZFgHFqCDotkAtWtixDvZdxSxiBJaTc33gMwvMm5RkTkQX8OHtwDfuXVbfMm7J 6TWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9b4ijC+cAYfToIrj9eHoqP212D75Zb1o0TkRsY0LXvQ=; b=EyqQ7SGLNMeq96I9gwCQDeIkSgtvk+/AFMmWPMWa/CZFIucfu8Jvq4HaUf3SmlFKP0 aw3e0xU9YGSM1sQ42XzdtZdzM2HgeAkq61D1KO7bhp/EaADaecDP8JV0yVElplC3sV/9 5IafOk/39TP5iaNWFiNl4T7FeejlgFScMWzEt5+DqseE+5IUSzQqRWfKRBnqvN4yqHCN PNJ5dvGsNDqSeSVg6lWleuRJCIC7Hp+OjzngpqvAqY9tOPkY5gbCbRZzzd7z9J+khrD4 6FAsl+WxJCkxs+Fmd5HOZjd5SnDXENudwIMLeoW0RviHMM0CHPbc9yAfQOu4GDTgc4kC /FSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVcGzH7G3FRSrrryRFhg8LzfmJH+Ouy3PdIZEKvjUimnobjCel+ 3LFlvLYSa1ySRbkf/75gbeCvfaPK1jGT3Us8KXIU8FyOOyg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwUpjbs9JfmaqRcDh6UGrCePm7obJ7n7uO7fNNS2f7QkXy3YxEGp7AqZ/qB5z9yE4F4suCnbYgAxtClneQp1lw=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:6983:: with SMTP id e125mr2384762vsc.222.1552668705874; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B71DF50C-3735-4A38-BC64-1BBC0233AEF2@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <B71DF50C-3735-4A38-BC64-1BBC0233AEF2@ericsson.com>
From: slon v sobstvennom palto <slonvpalto@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 18:51:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CABe6AHgo3ejUx-C7qFe=U0N2nVJ-gEykMgPAQ1AmJeieoGkHRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Mattsson <john.mattsson@ericsson.com>
Cc: "emu@ietf.org" <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aae7ad058424daa1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/8ND2ZFdBe72GG0BARRzZt5cHebM>
Subject: Re: [Emu] EAP and Fragmentation
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emu/>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 16:51:50 -0000

John wrote:

>That is probably the correct behavior to standardize, i.e., something like
>"Implementations MUST NOT set the L bit in unfragmented messages, but MUST
accept unfragmented messages with and without the L bit set."

I'm for the strict approach. Anyway some implementations don't adhere it.
The sentence above narrows the behaviour to a non-ambiguous while requires
to support all kinds of existing behaviours thus it looks like the most
exact form of the requirement.

Cheers,
Oleg

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:44 PM John Mattsson <john.mattsson@ericsson.com>
wrote:

> Alan wrote:
>
> >I've done a quick check.  On reception, FreeRADIUS accepts the L bit for
> any type of message.  It doesn't care >about fragments, just that the
> length is correct.
> >
>  >For sending packets, FreeRADIUS sets the L bit only if it is sending
> fragments.
>
> That is probably the correct behavior to standardize, i.e., something like
>
> "Implementations MUST NOT set the L bit in unfragmented messages, but MUST
> accept unfragmented messages with and without the L bit set."
>
> Cheers,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email