IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Fri, 05 April 2013 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9755721F977F for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oGebg0xIB3XR for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [88.190.25.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD99E21F977E for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983EB22410F7; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:57:44 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at power.freeradius.org
Received: from power.freeradius.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (power.freeradius.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22QFE+kzknWb; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:57:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Thor-2.local (unknown [70.50.217.204]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1E052240C73; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:57:43 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <515ECA45.8040209@deployingradius.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:57:41 -0400
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
References: <1A5FDF7C-9E93-447E-A103-9700349CB2F5@gmail.com> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1304021450180.3988@SMURF> <515C3604.3040406@deployingradius.com> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1304042021411.3988@SMURF> <tslli8xnoms.fsf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tslli8xnoms.fsf@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: radext@ietf.org, Peter Deacon <peterd@iea-software.com>, radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [radext] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:57:45 -0000

Sam Hartman wrote:
> As I understand it, the only case where you have to accept both normal
> UDP and DTLS responses is the case where you  transition with
> outstanding requests.

  Yes.

  When a server has a client marked as "DTLS required", it only accepts
DTLS.

> Am I missing something?

  No.

  I'll see if I can come up with some clarifying language.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status