IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] draft-cullen-radextra-status-realm-00

Alexander Clouter <alex+ietf@coremem.com> Mon, 02 January 2023 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <alex+ietf@coremem.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 738B0C1524BA for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 12:07:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=coremem.com header.b=d9NC76z/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=C8tZN2VM
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vrMjX44fOHC2 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 12:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC439C14F6E7 for <radext@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 12:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CD832000E5 for <radext@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 15:07:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap46 ([10.202.2.96]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 02 Jan 2023 15:07:25 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=coremem.com; h= cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1672690044; x=1672776444; bh=HHjZ1FAUjy Pert6wMgWC+t5cjVuy4zyZ1TfV7fULKHE=; b=d9NC76z/IWqjpLLCFBHDmlitK5 /ZN3jyIaQfBehBLaJAyHctA0cbbU2j4zZOphdX6gc+Lox3RNwCAISNyYX/hUmTrl WGzDsBidV2VQOwc5RxPAPlwh2YdYH/puE3Xd5jOWRSIGbmAreTPMuzdhenTZx7cP +LR3IlxJkr1ilacZc4nBt7Uzc1OUqd1uS1up90glKNaSjSH4K/bdVT5D+TzHVRyf q5qnLt9FeJMiz35mdoqVyyukpJbFCAFeUjLi2l1JilBQLf58S/T071cBLglgHlpg zuKMjiyTP53lSg8XxnA5q4aq0mOP0/kjHYcbRVBGvrUKbkMJSSPRPnXyNfiQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1672690044; x=1672776444; bh=HHjZ1FAUjyPert6wMgWC+t5cjVuy 4zyZ1TfV7fULKHE=; b=C8tZN2VMCybW+8e0gMNgdXjg3xYY/2ic8i9cKX0ibF/5 hMhMrwrKiSSRniHS1xa5Lmqvm3ze4+nhWfUDjzzO+I8yCSFxFBPcfJfDces9Tuom 7Si8koonrNqIn9galWinw7qM6BINiD2dW8zlRDsf/4rO4OAo4ulDIiu9c0dRiE2P lKm1B6VyRfqaGyVLBKR6WtQQV+tO6NxGlCkTLUpNu5RgXEg79msOEduq3/ewoguQ KHlV8cyO6vgIPwRJq9i87KrlBgYtkN9h2ovJPwPE69B3eSh58fhgIJ60w34h6XLE k4KmtbG2xynUkkViSNRiPcMp1QCGYoa9d+Zc7nj7DA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:fDmzY3ssesUmrUeOKjn7-lhKspcMEA9Pq20w7T_nwZiDndx_evDuow> <xme:fDmzY4eOVcxu1cUUAfat1i4YFa1Vwx8oAgPVI_PRZEkzED6pn8ZT6KIM38_mphGvt m4MgkvEQbzk7u8TXA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrjedvgddufeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedftehlvgigrghnuggvrhcuvehlohhuthgvrhdfuceorghl vgigodhivghtfhestghorhgvmhgvmhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffettd ejvdffueevvdejtdeljeelieefvdekjeehtddvudevhefggffhtdduvdeinecuffhomhgr ihhnpehprghrihhsqdhtrhgrtggvrhhouhhtvgdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhgvgidoihgvthhfsegtohhrvghm vghmrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:fDmzY6xRT0xhMkfrxOBRcarM8ob8i15lC4A30MIxzz5POAo-6wzVtA> <xmx:fDmzY2O6mXijfJSLazBL7qMQzylxn3uuMcVN_MNV6pf9rejl_h6Zaw> <xmx:fDmzY38ScWDM2EHhdYUrhTxKDzLFO2g_jOHnkrRjknYPLjw_1YdLBw> <xmx:fDmzY6KLd7WActc4fh-F4BI1Wm0lxoSHK7CaLYPGLAEVLl0JLLtYLA>
Feedback-ID: ie3614602:Fastmail
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id AD7672A20080; Mon, 2 Jan 2023 15:07:24 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1185-g841157300a-fm-20221208.002-g84115730
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <aef285d5-4f42-4420-8f27-6c188b121c8b@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D33C6016-E0EA-4F32-9847-92ED823875EB@deployingradius.com>
References: <BB2CA78D-4C7B-4A5D-A1D5-F09993636373@gmail.com> <747e85f4-71c5-4b45-aded-0bb73f1b334c@app.fastmail.com> <D33C6016-E0EA-4F32-9847-92ED823875EB@deployingradius.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2023 20:07:04 +0000
From: Alexander Clouter <alex+ietf@coremem.com>
To: radext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/Bz8g7Ub4f_j5pSfoxlzKPyHr7iM>
Subject: Re: [radext] draft-cullen-radextra-status-realm-00
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 02 Jan 2023 20:07:30 -0000

On Mon, 2 Jan 2023, at 20:01, Alan DeKok wrote:
>
>> Section 8:
>> 
>> "RADIUS Servers SHOULD NOT add Server-Information attributes to Response messages when processing Responses.", it is unclear why you would not want to have Server-Information attributes added to the responses on the way back? The routing may be asymmetrical (https://paris-traceroute.net/) and would be useful to see this.
>
>   The routing can't be asymmetrical.  Each reply *must* go back down the exact inverse path of the request.

An extremely good counter argument you have there. :)

Thanks

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status