Re: [radext] Help with diameter considerations for draft-hartman-radext-bigger-packets

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 18 February 2014 17:12 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 BEFE11A06BA for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:12:55 -0800 (PST)
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 b5fiJu7PlqpF for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:12:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [88.190.25.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8811A06A5 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:12:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D59224012C; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:12:50 +0100 (CET)
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 iGcWbyygUtp5; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:12:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Thor.local (unknown [70.50.217.206]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0DD322400DD; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:12:49 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <53039490.40709@deployingradius.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:12:48 -0500
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
References: <tsl4n44rr3y.fsf@mit.edu> <CCE45314-4EFE-4C64-9794-85006392F834@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcePKh4KC=8fY69N4HWPfk=-XXCYxZRwf-uTq07jO3qYsQ@mail.gmail.com> <52FFED0D.2090104@deployingradius.com> <tslha7w9zyc.fsf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tslha7w9zyc.fsf@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/5kIbTpPw3IdCculoPX4GMED1iDc
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, sarikaya@ieee.org, Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] Help with diameter considerations for draft-hartman-radext-bigger-packets
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: <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 Feb 2014 17:12:56 -0000

Sam Hartman wrote:
> The hard part is what to do about the  response-length attribute.

  To first order, it's irrelevant to Diameter.

  Inside of a Diameter routing system, packets of 64K are supported.  So
no changes or recommendations are required.

  Inside of a Diameter routing system, the Response-Length attribute can
be transported "as-is".  So no changes or recommendations are required.

  The issue is with RADIUS to Diameter gateways.

  My point is that these gateways implement RADIUS.  So any requirements
 are just requirements on the RADIUS portions.  These requirements are
already specified in the document.

> I wrote up some of the issues in a previous message.

  I can't find any comments related to Diameter and Response-Length in
previous messages.

  Alan DeKok.