Re: [radext] [OPSAWG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2865 (6915)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your help.  I’ve marked this as HFDU.

Regards,
Rob


From: radext <[e-mail]> on behalf of Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 15 January 2024 at 14:20
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[e-mail]>
Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [radext] [OPSAWG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2865 (6915)
On Jan 15, 2024, at 7:14 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi RFC 2865 authors, OPSAWG,

  I've CC'd RADEXT, as that WG is currently active.  I've also removed the 2865 authors email addresses.  I believe those became inactive decades ago.

> I think that this errata may be valid, but given the age of the RADIUS protocol, and the fact that I'm not familiar with it and this is a change to the protocol, then I'm somewhat concerned with verifying this errata, and hence I propose to move it to "Held for Document Update".
>
> Does anyone have any comments on this proposed resolution?

  I think "hold for document update" is best.

  We've covered these issues in RFC 8044, which defines data types for RADIUS (octets, printable text, IPs, integers, etc).  There are no data types which permit zero-length values.

  The variable-length data types defined in Section 3.4 (printable strings) and 3.5 (binary data) both say:

      Strings of length zero (0) MUST NOT be sent; omit the entire attribute instead.

 There is no _general_ prohibition on attributes having zero length values.  But it is not currently permitted to define an attribute which has a zero-length value.

  As such, "hold for document update" is the reasonable conclusion.

   Alan DeKok.

_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext