IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets-02.txt

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Thu, 26 February 2015 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.com>
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 1AF0C1A90BF for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:06:55 -0800 (PST)
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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 DdoYJenFPHH6 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:06:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6CF11A9083 for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:06:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1921F20601; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:06:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ksyMsOtyXO-W; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:06:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (unknown [10.1.10.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:06:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 89E6680480; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:06:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: Alejandro Perez Mendez <alex@um.es>
References: <54EF26A3.6040502@um.es> <CFC9B8C6-3DF9-4A77-9EBD-DB72A75F2EA0@deployingradius.com> <54EF5F97.1060905@um.es>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:06:46 -0500
In-Reply-To: <54EF5F97.1060905@um.es> (Alejandro Perez Mendez's message of "Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:01:59 +0100")
Message-ID: <tslegpc7djd.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/0rWEdzjgpwTCXY1cQG8tUqnTnMQ>
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets-02.txt
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, 26 Feb 2015 18:06:55 -0000

>>>>> "Alejandro" == Alejandro Perez Mendez <alex@um.es> writes:

    Alejandro> Hi Alan,

    Alejandro> thanks for the explanation. It is now clear. It serves to
    Alejandro> build a unique key in the form of (ID,
    Alejandro> Original-Packet-Code) which is used by the Client to
    Alejandro> match it with the corresponding request, as ID by itself
    Alejandro> cannot do it (is the Client allowed to create parallel
    Alejandro> Access-Requests and Accounting-Requests with the same
    Alejandro> ID?)

>From my edit buffer:

      <t>A Protocol-Error packet MUST contain a Original-Packet-Code
      attribute,
      along with an Error-Cause attribute.  Other attributes MAY be
      included if desired.  The Original-Packet-Code contains the code
      from the reque\
      st that generated the protocol error so that clients can
      disambiguate requests \
      with different codes and the same ID.  

Is that sufficient?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email