Re: [OPSAWG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2865 (6915)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi RFC 2865 authors, OPSAWG, 

I think that this errata may be valid, but given the age of the RADIUS protocol, and the fact that I'm not familiar with it and this is a change to the protocol, then I'm somewhat concerned with verifying this errata, and hence I propose to move it to "Held for Document Update".

Does anyone have any comments on this proposed resolution?

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2022 6:23 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2865 (6915)
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2865,
> "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6915
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Oleg Pekar <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 5
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>       The Value field is zero or more octets and contains information
>       specific to the Attribute.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>       The Value field is one or more octets and contains information
>       specific to the Attribute.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> 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. For 'text'
> type it says: "Text of length zero (0) MUST NOT be sent; omit the entire
> attribute instead" and the same for 'string' type.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC2865 (draft-ietf-radius-radius-v2-06)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
> Publication Date    : June 2000
> Author(s)           : C. Rigney, S. Willens, A. Rubens, W. Simpson
> Category            : DRAFT STANDARD
> Source              : Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG