Re: [radext] A proposal to allow more than 256 packets on any connection

Ignacio Goyret <ignacio.goyret@nokia.com> Tue, 25 April 2017 01:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ignacio.goyret@nokia.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 E939B1319A3 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 6OnbP_MWJJoM for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-us.alcatel-lucent.com (us-hpswa-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.18.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 206B01319A4 for <radext@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.18.16]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id D815FB6EF784E; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:45:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.66]) by us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id v3P1j3tI002734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:45:03 GMT
Received: from cliff.eng.ascend.com (cliff.eng.ascend.com [192.207.23.55]) by us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id v3P1j2fg019451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:45:03 GMT
Received: from igoyret-c1.nokia.com (igoyret-pc [135.227.139.12]) by cliff.eng.ascend.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id v3P1lEJE009334 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:47:14 -0700
Message-Id: <201704250147.v3P1lEJE009334@cliff.eng.ascend.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:44:40 -0700
To: Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>
From: Ignacio Goyret <ignacio.goyret@nokia.com>
Cc: radext@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <AC777641-F355-4D05-8D89-9B64D12F2016@freeradius.org>
References: <149306333665.25840.6313986250597447759.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1AB9F08E-0739-4BE3-9827-3EA830DC113B@freeradius.org> <201704242107.v3OL7GmV003413@cliff.eng.ascend.com> <A8D3E0FB-56A4-434C-A06F-D6D1AE369984@freeradius.org> <201704242228.v3OMSGci005558@cliff.eng.ascend.com> <AA2A38FE-4ACB-4556-AA29-0C3A057789B7@freeradius.org> <201704250002.v3P02HOb007491@cliff.eng.ascend.com> <AC777641-F355-4D05-8D89-9B64D12F2016@freeradius.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/Gpo16RhkygrI5J2H96v5kk_CS94>
Subject: Re: [radext] A proposal to allow more than 256 packets on any connection
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 01:45:07 -0000

>>> As someone who's written the most popular RADIUS server on the planet, my experience counts for something.
>> 
>> I never said or implied otherwise. I have great respect for you and
>> your contributions over the years.
>> 
>> But let's keep it civil and on a technical level.
>
>My comments *were* on a technical level.  The insinuation that I was uncivil is inappropriate.

Well, let's see: you followed that with these comments:

>You have pretty much zero track record in RADEXT.  Whatever you've done, it's been in a walled garden, with minimal interaction with the IETF or other implementors.


>Since your implementation doesn't exist for purposes of peer review, we only have your naked assertion to go by.

Either one of those comments are either ad-hominen attacks or dismissive,
either way quiet inappropriate for the discussion at hand. Thus, my call
for civility.

Your opinion, very valuable without a doubt, is not the only opinion
in the world, just like your implementation is not the only implementation
in the world.

I'm done arguing.

-Ignacio