IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Oleg Pekar <oleg.pekar.2017@gmail.com> Mon, 04 April 2022 08:05 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 92EA23A1F7C for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 01:05:39 -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=unavailable 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 ZRA5sc5NCIqX for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 01:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) (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 DE0323A1F7B for <emu@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 01:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id gt4so2159315pjb.4 for <emu@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 01:05:25 -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=OsRPQAGLkS+39OP8LVqW9P/LZ7gsVrKwgeXiE22aboY=; b=I2CoAmsFerEnWMXPPOn9R7QWpL33HFiLnhZnQgnMyt1Uuj/hyA2ekjSH0OdJiyJYA7 GZT16S/ktQbLx9bipGwxa5peMujVnV16+OoU164WXhPMDKqmjHJ5LM9iYbHMRuGRRQ2a 2LhpsX8/jZ9PGM+mBPt6o3NR/qUDQN/MbmsfhrTxmcgtvcJfGUoFplbhaOqri0yyGSTn vHNlQKq+HQ9Wme+669BGt97ICe/cSgiJ4BIg4MmWJdcdyRKfVT4N7xTMNXVwHHcPHvE8 yQMHgCdSnE/8lBW5l3O251AwY1oqPwJSttUkW3DRsebFr6v9DKJoCRYF7Ky7/G3a+n4i vOIA==
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=OsRPQAGLkS+39OP8LVqW9P/LZ7gsVrKwgeXiE22aboY=; b=oXq3BdhLsjeL19DdvdrPk8s49tpaBJ/u5HulV7vnLemTwYUacAeY1EFbJZXWM9HxSr Kbs/HEtwXurvnD49ZQL3QuEwGOtWtIe4Uz+csO4wBKlOKQG88poX6WdgtEca7ceMQeVf PjDakcYeN53YqrDbc/gNnfKRPzmYV6+gyOWDNZn51OndAhfllHkJijQzELBePQ3Xiksf EtqoPKbFjiv39W6ed1orp7IsUeQM7PWGbRuZwgVwboIan9REGReVPh9IwW9/m3yd///P QKGRJQMkLtU6lxVpC2Fh6j0cNfsdPaGevrCV8Le5srJaNhc1oczU2W9Y11f+i/aRZRQl 4x/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530TH0yO9UixDLHnPhAyYcD7vy9pEnq9EEwegJTWBecb1rpcWuQn wxHJ8xik2PStpOytNoavQDTAV2iSdhzom7tJpkc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzpCnqJL+jFX9ArCFE7+HsnLiOD+/GmxLrjIJeeg8YRl4tzB8aDx/7q762ULb4m3AY4Nr8unEqkztck3YWva5Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e74d:b0:156:9d3c:4271 with SMTP id p13-20020a170902e74d00b001569d3c4271mr4897075plf.79.1649059524675; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 01:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <fbc6e33a-fa6a-ba2c-0840-700116a6a182@rfc-editor.org> <CABXxEz8toUKm06i1yX4oUg68YkeWLS0-dCLSUqzz7FSmreN7Fw@mail.gmail.com> <09F21AA5-50A0-464F-B4CF-AF174BA93DB1@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <09F21AA5-50A0-464F-B4CF-AF174BA93DB1@deployingradius.com>
From: Oleg Pekar <oleg.pekar.2017@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 11:05:13 +0300
Message-ID: <CABXxEz-HL5-ReMX+cBD7YR2AVViqz11S7mnvQ=v8VuA-d1S3Eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002e8a6405dbcf97ed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/UALxz9Jj7YAjQIJZjw6KLeQGyI0>
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: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 08:05:42 -0000

I submitted errata on this https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6915

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 5:21 PM Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
wrote:

> On Mar 31, 2022, at 10:05 AM, Oleg Pekar <oleg.pekar.2017@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>   Yeah.  :(  It's horrible.
>
> > 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.
>
>   Yes.
>
>   RADIUS is weird and terrible.
>
>   Alan DeKok.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email