IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Update RFC 6929 in draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 20 March 2014 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA8C1A08F4 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 p6xTPNh0DHFO for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A141A03DD for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D02D20039; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:31:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id E8E1063AB2; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B1463A9E; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:12:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <532B0083.7050606@deployingradius.com>
References: <53285DE2.9040802@cisco.com> <035801cf42d2$99464b80$cbd2e280$@augustcellars.com> <5328C172.5080305@deployingradius.com> <14050.1395325355@sandelman.ca> <532B0083.7050606@deployingradius.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:12:01 -0400
Message-ID: <31142.1395339121@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/0ZhS4mGCe9pkVZh1Zwvmq-HO1hI
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [radext] Update RFC 6929 in draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:12:15 -0000

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
    >> It's not just the document/WG, it is also users of the protocol who
    >> think
    >> that they are in a walled garden, and can abuse reserved fields.

    > I have zero sympathy for such people.

Without the pointer, they won't know they are being stupid.

    >> An Experimental document can allocate bits from a standard... on an
    >> experimental basis.  ECN bits were done that way.

    > OK.

    > I'm not sure we want an IANA registry for these bits.  It seems
    > overkill.  But it would be a way to track their allocation.

I'm not 100% sure you need to have an IANA registry, but I'm sure that
the document needs to update the previous document.

RFC6929 did not say what kind of specifications:

      Future specifications may define additional meaning for this
      field.  Implementations therefore MUST NOT treat this field as
      invalid if it is non-zero.

I think it's a call for your AD to make.
I think that it's reasonable for it to be an experimental document,
and I think that ECN *repurposed* the ToS bits without an IANA registration.



--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting for hire =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email