[radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> Fri, 20 January 2017 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <lbartholomew@amsl.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 E901212944D; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:46:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UOuylrfl-VCj; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:46:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 166F812944A; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:46:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1876F1E565F; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:46:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dHJp-Qm4GJhj; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:46:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:646:8f00:be20:8c34:2c21:f31:d958] (unknown [IPv6:2601:646:8f00:be20:8c34:2c21:f31:d958]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34CDB1E565E; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:46:21 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3E574CA2-88B4-4C29-BFD0-77F8CA6EBCE5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <438C29BB-EB6E-4D10-A538-B0C0F9DACC68@amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:46:42 -0800
Message-Id: <6A026C96-7C9B-4217-BEE1-E78FCB13487E@amsl.com>
References: <20170109233022.14EE5B81304@rfc-editor.org> <CAHbuEH7A2+WyuexCVtFsk8bFGMG5nqOEDwbZY12oVgmwZtaJ5w@mail.gmail.com> <FF91E7C3-72C4-4F77-A957-ED8219B9C523@freeradius.org> <CAHbuEH7-E9VUH+ZxJdqQpr=hjhKFf0obEPLKZLwJHUZBmqF21w@mail.gmail.com> <F1A445D1-C233-41AF-9E1D-8DE50E8DF092@gmail.com> <CAHbuEH6DjWip-Sr=0hRnKz4M5HwrW0H1pY5vAZE_sQHMDWgj9Q@mail.gmail.com> <438C29BB-EB6E-4D10-A538-B0C0F9DACC68@amsl.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/4ssegp_D4_gRDvOcQLP7FQ79-Jk>
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, radext-ads@ietf.org, Winter Stefan <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, radext-chairs@ietf.org, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Subject: [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:46:47 -0000

Dear *Kathleen,

We do not believe that we have heard from you regarding our question below.  Please review, and let us know how this document should be updated.

Thank you.

RFC Editor/lb


On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote:

> Dear Kathleen,
> 
> Thank you for the email.
> 
> It is not clear to us how best to update this document.  Would the following be correct?
> 
> OLD:
> Updates: 2865, 3162, 6158, 6572
> 
> NEW:
> Updates: 2865, 3162, 4072, 6158, 6572, 7268
> 
> 
> OLD:
> This document updates RFCs 2865, 3162, 6158, and 6572.
> 
> NEW:
> This document updates RFCs 2865, 3162, 4072, 6158, 6572, and 7268.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
> 
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I think we have agreement to continue moving forward, just noting the 'updates' since it is not a significant update.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Kathleen
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Data types do not affect what is actually sent on the wire, they just make it easier for a RADIUS server to add support for an attribute without custom code. So the datatypes draft does not create a deployment blocker or backward compatibility issue, it actually may make implementation easier. 
>> 
>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Adding the IESG and the working group to see if there are any concerns with the following approach... inline
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > > > a) RFCs 4072 and 7268 are not cited anywhere in this document.
>>> > > > Please let us know where they should be cited; otherwise, the
>>> > > > listings will be removed.
>>> > >
>>> > > The RFCs are referenced simply because this document is updating
>>> > > attributes that they define.
>>> >
>>> > Can you please list the specific updates from the 2 mentioned RFCs here and then I'll figure out if this needs to go back through the WG and last calls or not.
>>> 
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types/radius-types.xhtml#radius-types-2
>>> 
>>>   RFC 4072 defines EAP-Key-Name.  It's in the RADIUS space, but t's defined to have a Diameter data type "OctetString".   We can't use "OctetString" for a RADIUS data types, so the "data types" document defines it as the RADIUS data type "string". Which ends up being the same for all intents and purposes.
>>> 
>>>   RFC 7268 defines a bunch of attributes.  Most are of 32-bit integers, which maps well to the data types doc.  The only real "new" thing is EAPoL-Announcement.  It's defined manually in RFC 7268 as "concatenate the fragments together before looking at it".  The data types doc calls this out as a special data type "concat", along with EAP-Message, and a few others.
>>> 
>>>   I think everyone is in agreement as to what the data types should be.  The "updates RFC 4072 / 7268" note is really saying "RFC 4072 / 7268 talks about this attribute, but doesn't really give an adequate definition for it.  So the data types document picks something, which is compatible with the original definition, but uses a now-standard data type"
>>> 
>>>   i.e. the original spec isn't so much wrong, as unclear and incomplete.
>>> 
>>> This seems like a small enough 'updates' that I think it should be fine to progress just adding the note that RFC4072 and RFC7268 are updated.
>>> 
>>> Any objections?  The alternative would be to put this back through the last call process, but I think this looks small enough to avoid that.  It would really just be for process sake IMO.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   Alan DeKok.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Kathleen
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> radext mailing list
>>> radext@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>