IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] A way forward with the DTLS document - a poll for WG consensus

Peter Deacon <peterd@iea-software.com> Tue, 18 June 2013 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <peterd@iea-software.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 C037621E8091 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 rbA9KyZGwKa4 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aspen.internal.iea-software.com (remote.iea-software.com [70.89.142.196]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5DC21E8095 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SMURF (unverified [10.0.3.195]) by aspen.internal.iea-software.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 7.0.6) with ESMTP id <B0005887739@aspen.internal.iea-software.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:33:52 -0700
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:33:43 -0700
From: Peter Deacon <peterd@iea-software.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7A3DC30B-CBEF-4B4B-B542-89CAB29682BC@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1306181023040.3928@SMURF>
References: <516EA97E.2000005@deployingradius.com> <C47910C2-BCEA-4DC2-A016-C98D67B62DD9@gmail.com> <A95B4818FD85874D8F16607F1AC7C628B4032E@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <0E1BBA4B-1985-43C3-800A-AF336CABEF30@gmail.com> <517FBD04.1050009@deployingradius.com> <B43B810F-DBF3-4CCD-BFA0-494E10819D2A@gmail.com> <51828E77.9020303@deployingradius.com> <061B9149-3354-4E53-8721-FCD86BF03EF0@gmail.com> <A95B4818FD85874D8F16607F1AC7C628BC542F@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <7A3DC30B-CBEF-4B4B-B542-89CAB29682BC@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (WNT 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] A way forward with the DTLS document - a poll for WG consensus
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: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:33:57 -0000

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Jouni Korhonen wrote:

> We still have a sticking issue with the DTLS document on protocol
> multiplexing raised by Joe, see:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext/current/msg08459.html

> So, in order to progress things and get the (rough) WG consensus what to 
> include in the document, We ask the WG to pick up their favourite 
> approach from the two choices below. This poll ends on

> 1) Forbid the protocol multiplexing i.e.,
>   require RADIUS over port 1812.

My favorite is option #1.

regards,
Peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email