IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Thu, 31 March 2022 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.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 69A263A1A76 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 07:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 1BbX6HNyrFde for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 07:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A08EB3A1A77 for <emu@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 07:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (24-52-251-6.cable.teksavvy.com [24.52.251.6]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1193C39; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 14:21:07 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABXxEz8toUKm06i1yX4oUg68YkeWLS0-dCLSUqzz7FSmreN7Fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:21:06 -0400
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <09F21AA5-50A0-464F-B4CF-AF174BA93DB1@deployingradius.com>
References: <fbc6e33a-fa6a-ba2c-0840-700116a6a182@rfc-editor.org> <CABXxEz8toUKm06i1yX4oUg68YkeWLS0-dCLSUqzz7FSmreN7Fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Oleg Pekar <oleg.pekar.2017@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/_dAJUeM6DTB6crVVywQsK8cIISo>
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 14:21:25 -0000

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