IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Control of RFC 3580. Transfer to RADIUS WG possible?

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Thu, 08 October 2015 13:17 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 EB7111B33A0 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:17:26 -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 ZebzoOCmJ3rX for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [195.154.231.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6701B3386 for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB15B2240490; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:17:21 +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 lbl1bHEq_lPX; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:17:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.120.41] (24-246-5-242.cable.teksavvy.com [24.246.5.242]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AAAF422403A5; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:17:20 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3094\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLU181-W757C8D75C28A059CB9589093350@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:17:19 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <802DC895-A379-46C9-87F4-96AF6A99B3A0@deployingradius.com>
References: <CAGnO3dp-=6cODkAgV7R6vjTYWz0BXoODY3kPO37-iJ9ve-407g@mail.gmail.com> <5310AA34-D3C1-4B12-A691-1DF427904DF1@deployingradius.com> <CAHbuEH47h2yk19BR11TaOnnZGR_8FnLgnCf7zJUukRP7GJq4sg@mail.gmail.com> <451E43F5-44DF-4651-8372-49BC90DFEC5A@deployingradius.com> <11393_1444227411_56152953_11393_5293_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01D3D6BC@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BLU181-W757C8D75C28A059CB9589093350@phx.gbl>
To: Aboba Bernard <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3094)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/4MBW2hPCLGN9jO8xLWD4lWvKcys>
Cc: Nick Lowe <nick.lowe@lugatech.com>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "lionel.morand@orange.com" <lionel.morand@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] Control of RFC 3580. Transfer to RADIUS WG possible?
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 08 Oct 2015 13:17:27 -0000

On Oct 8, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> So far, the issues discussed relate to accounting, which is a relatively minor aspect of RFC 3580.  

  Which is good.

> Furthermore, the accounting issues relate largely to IEEE 802.11, rather than to IEEE 802.1X, which was the focus of RFC 3580. 

  Which is also goo.

> As a result, it is not at all clear to me why it is necessary to transfer control of this document from IEEE 802 to the IETF,

  That's not the purpose of the discussion.

> let alone why it is necessary to revise it at all. 

  The revisions were motivated from seeing inter-operability problems, and implementation problems.  The existing RFCs discuss user sessions, but the concept is vague and ill defined.  The guidelines for how a NAS / server should handle user sessions are similarly vague.

  This vagueness causes real-world problems.  I run into this pretty much every week.

> If there is a desire to deal with accounting issues relating to IEEE 802.11, why not create a new document focused on that topic, with review by IEEE 802.11?  If necessary, it can update RFC 3580. 

  That is the best approach, I think.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email