Re: [Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:

Oleg Pekar <oleg.pekar.2017@gmail.com> Thu, 31 March 2022 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <oleg.pekar.2017@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 D522A3A17E8 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 07:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.857
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.857 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 UPDMfNhTLUFG for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 07:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) (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 5FC463A18FC for <emu@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 07:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id a16-20020a17090a6d9000b001c7d6c1bb13so3720672pjk.4 for <emu@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 07:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vXaetDK8dPM9mGfnz0vF8HH1RnHMslaLOzwCZJYcsNo=; b=DVFb6aNPxsJooiAf2MJ0Eg/eVFrwcCrN85eu9zo+y+aJwce5EtGouQo2Rsq5lnjKVH iDmrj6peNLCub2+pJ3GjJjb4qZP1Qu6wa6xeTqGx8k9mOhAZt+i8fBUrzsDIRVsOcA01 ybUtLTmVeJvgrFmMcJBYlf3B68+TAhQzeNU4qF0T4KKfkSs6dxX+ka4RWvyShHc17IUB 4WTjvSjzwrm97KaI678Ar7vYfDjH3oYLP17Fre6oRNX0jx7OQSA5hStACIID7AVTKw1R k1e7lfc+2l3pgE8FjtuauMAhx/q+3G/bkSJCrU/5ICbVfiX4x32O3f3VbUMcIA+afvxi ZVBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vXaetDK8dPM9mGfnz0vF8HH1RnHMslaLOzwCZJYcsNo=; b=ksM5jUU1CRHdCjc4ZZx9iEVfmKh0S6bziL9qhJiItEeoN2aJpoU5I1RXOkg72WbDp9 IDD+MNFilyk7R8Rxjf8Wi7ZvKI0Ddl+yG+n2IGX0ev2QyObxOx6h+wOLHHC4s6eSAoz+ Su7cJARJXeyqrZ+Xh/Y0SPl2CHy1lU5oaNZz+0es7JRFJVvJHYefvWW17fjwjekNiqgv K9bsdaRjcbYS1GR4++/pqmTQcQRBLUkEzMBnkqFoCLfJlpSDStWQsdGM9FUB9H0zT25a 4wkfaoGIli3DFeKzeYOIe61B3hi+UP5soN9neTZrZgT+14BqC1VzU9vpu0P4Y3D0Pcq/ 9wtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533S5Apx6P4gWfmU/c3Zd2vvNfhm1Ihb6cnY+Ynfxdke3T+m9sQd gCOmAn0ZrENDcBUoLrnjZ6gr0XQQQZaQgMD81wcKIX4e
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzKn3vukx4TugLflLJSX2ZVFbH/qjqKvYosndYwaTl5YPS8dZWCQmXVi1QaxWuliTWkyTjOZtP8jCBycVwctC8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:2c0c:b0:1b9:fa47:1caf with SMTP id m12-20020a17090a2c0c00b001b9fa471cafmr6378976pjd.34.1648735519190; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 07:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <fbc6e33a-fa6a-ba2c-0840-700116a6a182@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <fbc6e33a-fa6a-ba2c-0840-700116a6a182@rfc-editor.org>
From: Oleg Pekar <oleg.pekar.2017@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:05:07 +0300
Message-ID: <CABXxEz8toUKm06i1yX4oUg68YkeWLS0-dCLSUqzz7FSmreN7Fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
Cc: EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f3307d05db8426b0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/J0o6HFIh-qk5mUnOKxtaz3BwiOo>
Subject: Re: [Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:
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: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 14:05:26 -0000

Hi all,

It looks like RADIUS RFC 2865, Section "5. Attributes" is ambiguous when it
talks about the attribute value size:

First it says: "The Value field is zero or more octets", then it provides 5
possible value data types none of which allows a zero length value.

Section "5.26. Vendor-Specific" also says about the value of a
vendor-specific attribute "The String field is one or more octets".

Thus the RFC allows empty values for attributes in general but prohibits
for any declared types of the attributes.

Regards,
Oleg

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:08 PM Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear) <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> wrote:

> Dear EMU working group,
>
> Alan Dekok has reported two errata[1,2] against RFC 3579.  RFC 3579 is
> classed an independent submission, and thus falls under the purview of
> the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE).  The ISE is inclined to verify
> both errata, and will do so in the next two months unless this group
> advises otherwise.
>
> Eliot Lear (ISE)
>
> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6154
> [2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6259
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>