Re: [radext] radius fragmentation: why not EAP message

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 04 March 2014 15:39 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 C17051A0154 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:39:47 -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 tGHPzpqWK7cL for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:39:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [88.190.25.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A3F1A00F1 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:39:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C7522400FF; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:39:42 +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 kcrab7gKES0d; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:39:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from dhcp-b41d.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-b41d.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.180.29]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE78B22400AD; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:39:42 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5315F3BE.8010503@deployingradius.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 15:39:42 +0000
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: <tslppm2vusa.fsf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tslppm2vusa.fsf@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/62iMXgMRHWUo0aXfHzM5wyDww9I
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [radext] radius fragmentation: why not EAP message
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, 04 Mar 2014 15:39:48 -0000

Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> My rationale for objecting to an EAP message  is that if a proxy fails
> with fragmentation, it probably intends to drop new stuff.
> We should not standardize mechanisms designed to get around intentional
> proxy configuration.

  I agree.

  Alan DeKok.