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

"Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 01 April 2022 05:09 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
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 2746C3A12D6; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 22:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 rF-_rKn59xnc; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 22:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.61.145.21] (unknown [173.38.220.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 611B33A123F; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 22:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <fcee4ae2-5d48-697c-d92c-1d204652fb41@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 07:07:31 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
From: "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Cc: radext@ietf.org, EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>, emu-ads@ietf.org
References: <fbc6e33a-fa6a-ba2c-0840-700116a6a182@rfc-editor.org> <CAOW+2dvuh2r-qbKM0h-qohTOpCiUy_U58vi22nNiXJs4cOjUBA@mail.gmail.com> <7FEC9E12-846B-4218-8F29-F6839243B8C2@deployingradius.com> <CAOW+2dudRkygc8PPobWgUNZd7n5v6YsJGVJjRZDoM_pwvnxFOg@mail.gmail.com> <35F3907F-9EDD-45D7-B2CB-101FD02FE642@deployingradius.com> <1cab955a-1379-d191-0d44-81d2c355d231@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <1cab955a-1379-d191-0d44-81d2c355d231@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/qED9duV_RRBrYzdvJk-sgDIjwkE>
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: Fri, 01 Apr 2022 05:09:02 -0000

Corrected URLs below:

On 01.04.22 06:48, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote:
> Ok.
>
> I have edited – but not yet verified – the two errata accordingly.  
> Please see:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6154
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6259
>
> Are there any further edits that are required?
>
> Eliot (ISE)
>
> On 01.04.22 00:52, Alan DeKok wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 2022, at 4:40 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Alan suggested:
>>> "   EAP-Start is indicated by sending an EAP-Message attribute with a
>>>     length of 3.  The single byte of data SHOULD be set to zero on
>>>     transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.  RADIUS clients 
>>> MUST NOT
>>>     send EAP-Message attributes of length 2, as attributes with no 
>>> value
>>>     are not permitted in RADIUS.  However, for historical reasons 
>>> and for
>>>     compatibility with existing practice, RADIUS servers MUST accept 
>>> EAP-Messages
>>>     of length 2, and treat them as EAP-Start.
>>>
>>>    Just checking the source I have locally, the server accepts 
>>> zero-length EAP-Message (or any other text/string attribute, for 
>>> that matter).  So that's fine."
>>>
>>> [BA] This suggested errata text looks good.
>>    Thanks.
>>
>>> [BA] This text is better. The implicit assumption here is that the 
>>> NAS is sending an EAP-Request with a locally implemented EAP type, 
>>> without talking to the RADIUS server.  Of course, the same thing 
>>> could happen if the RADIUS server uses an inappropriate default 
>>> type.  So perhaps this might work:
>>>
>>> "  Where the initial EAP-Request sent by the NAS is for an
>>>    authentication Type (4 or greater), the peer MAY respond with a Nak
>>>    indicating that it would prefer another authentication method. In 
>>> this
>>>   case, the NAS should send an Access-Request encapsulating the
>>>   received EAP-Response/Nak.  This allows a peer to suggest another
>>>   EAP method where the NAS is configured to send a default EAP
>>>    type (such as MD5-Challenge) which may not be appropriate."
>>    That looks good to me, thanks.
>>
>>    Alan DeKok.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>