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

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 18 March 2014 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.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 B9F411A030C for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 VX_4zQrDDRrP for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [88.190.25.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204911A023C for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A0F2240132; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:58:12 +0100 (CET)
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 6BlR572kLGVk; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:58:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Thor.local (unknown [70.50.218.22]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2789C2240028; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:58:11 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5328C172.5080305@deployingradius.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:58:10 -0400
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
References: <53285DE2.9040802@cisco.com> <035801cf42d2$99464b80$cbd2e280$@augustcellars.com>
In-Reply-To: <035801cf42d2$99464b80$cbd2e280$@augustcellars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/1Ry0ImqVzOewSzzDUVPrIkyCFKg
Cc: 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>, radext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation@tools.ietf.org, lionel.morand@orange.com
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: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:58:25 -0000

Jim Schaad wrote:
> While it is true that an implementer of 6929 does not need to see this
> document, it is also true that this document is effectively allocating a
> bit from a structure that is in that document.  If this document does
> not update 6929, then it is possible that the next document to update
> that structure will fail to notice this and allocate the same bit for a
> different purpose.

  I hope we're all smart enough to remember that the bit is allocated.
If we're not... the WG should be shut down.

> I believe that this update relationship needs to be retained.

  It may be useful, but IETF process may forbid it.

  Alan DeKok.