Re: [radext] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA allocations for RFC 5447 (attributes 124 and 125)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Amanda,

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:59:31AM +0000, Amanda Baber via RT wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> Given Lionel's confirmation, should we go ahead and make these changes at https://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types?

Yes, please make those changes.

Thanks,

Benjamin

> OLD:
> 
> 124	MIP6-Feature-Vector	string	[RFC5447]
> 125	MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix	ipv6prefix	[RFC5447]
> 
> NEW:
> 
> 124     MIP6-Feature-Vector     integer64       [RFC5447]
> 125     MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix   string  [RFC5447]
> 
> thanks,
> Amanda
> 
> On Tue Aug 07 08:03:49 2018, [e-mail] wrote:
> > I agree with the proposal.
> > It is important that the types defined in RFC5447 are the ones listed
> > in the IANA registry.
> > For information, there are existing implementations relying on these
> > AVPs and it is important to be consistent between the RFC and
> > registry.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Lionel
> > 
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : radext [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Amanda
> > > Baber via
> > > RT
> > > Envoyé : lundi 6 août 2018 22:33
> > > Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Objet : [radext] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA allocations for RFC
> > > 5447
> > > (attributes 124 and 125)
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon Aug 06 13:00:05 2018, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > On Aug 6, 2018, at 8:01 AM, Denis Ovsienko <[e-mail]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Recently I was reviewing some code that adds support for two RFC
> > > > > 5447
> > > > > RADIUS AVPs below:
> > > > >
> > > > > The MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP (AVP Code 125) is of type
> > > > > OctetString
> > > > > The MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP (AVP Code 124) is of type Unsigned64
> > > > > and
> > > > >
> > > > > It turned out, the current RADIUS Types registry at
> > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types/radius-types.xhtml
> > > > > lists both attributes with wrong types:
> > > > >
> > > > > 125   MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix   ipv6prefix      [RFC5447]
> > > >
> > > > That is definitely wrong.  The "ipv6prefix" format is different
> > > > than
> > > > the one used by MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix in RFC 5337.
> > > >
> > > > > 124   MIP6-Feature-Vector     string  [RFC5447]
> > > >
> > > > That issue is a bit different.  64-bit integers were defined in RFC
> > > > 6929 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6929#section-2.5) long after
> > > > RFC
> > > > 5447 was published.
> > > >
> > > > So at the time RFC 5447 was published, "string" was the correct
> > > > definition.
> > > >
> > > > > Those incorrect types had propagated from the IANA registry into
> > > > > FreeRADIUS and Wireshark (both have been fixed now for MIP6-Home-
> > > > > Link-Prefix, see the discussion and the follow-ups at
> > > > > https://github.com/the-tcpdump-group/tcpdump/pull/636 if
> > > > > interested).
> > > > >
> > > > > Having studied this discrepancy thoroughly, I had concluded the
> > > > > AVP
> > > > > definitions are correct in RFC 5447, so I did not file an
> > > > > erratum.
> > > > > The problem seems to be with those IANA allocations only. Could
> > > > > somebody review this issue and put the IANA allocations right?
> > > >
> > > > In the end, I think that the incorrect IANA allocations were a
> > > > result
> > > > of the updates done in RFC 8044.  The early drafts had a table
> > > > which
> > > > updated all of the IANA data types, e.g.:
> > > >
> > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-05#section-
> > > > 4.2
> > >
> > > Right, we took the entries from here when the document was approved:
> > >
> > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08#section-
> > > 4.2
> > >
> > > > The MIP6 attributes are listed there as "ipv6prefix" and "string".
> > > > As
> > > > the author of RFC 8044, I think that's my mistake.  Updating
> > > > hundreds
> > > > of attributes required reading many RFCs, and it's understandable
> > > > that
> > > > a few mistakes were made.
> > > >
> > > > Unless there are objections from DIME or RADEXT, I think it would
> > > > be
> > > > best for IANA to update the registry as follows:
> > > >
> > > > 125     MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix   string  [RFC5447]
> > > > 124     MIP6-Feature-Vector     integer64       [RFC5447]
> > > >
> > > > We may need approval from the AD (Ben).  Explicit consensus from
> > > > the
> > > > WG would also be helpful.
> > > >
> > > > Alan DeKok.
> > >
> > > If there's no errata report required, we can move ahead once the AD
> > > lets us
> > > know that any appropriate consensus has been reached (if we haven't
> > > heard
> > > from the chairs first) and gives us the go-ahead.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Amanda Baber
> > > Lead IANA Services Specialist
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > radext mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
> > messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
> > deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> > 
> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
> > privileged information that may be protected by law;
> > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> > delete this message and its attachments.
> > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
> > been modified, changed or falsified.
> > Thank you.
>