IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Thu, 04 April 2013 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.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 AC02E21F901E for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 m9nbIZRXqmeS for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [88.190.25.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F056A21F8D8F for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD912240F53; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:49:30 +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 26Q2y+ibv-2i; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:49:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Thor-2.local (unknown [70.50.217.204]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 836FE2240D8B; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:49:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <515DF567.3010504@deployingradius.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:49:27 -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>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>
References: <1A5FDF7C-9E93-447E-A103-9700349CB2F5@gmail.com> <015401ce317b$4f1ad4e0$ed507ea0$@augustcellars.com>
In-Reply-To: <015401ce317b$4f1ad4e0$ed507ea0$@augustcellars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [radext] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:50:11 -0000

Jim Schaad wrote:
> Alan,
> 
> I am having a problem with the following new text
> 
> The client MUST, however, accept RADIUS/UDP
>    responses to any outstanding requests.
> 
> Under what circumstances do you believe that it would be a good idea to
> accept a RADIUS/UDP response to a RADIUS/DTLS request?

  Never.  The idea was to allow transition from UDP to DTLS.  There will
be outstanding UDP packets, and the client should accept responses to
those packets.

> s/practive/practice/

  Fixed, thanks.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status