IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04

"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Fri, 05 April 2013 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.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 7D0CD21F90F3 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KmdBljsar8RV for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.pacifier.net (smtp1.pacifier.net [64.255.237.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0A721F8E49 for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Philemon (mail.augustcellars.com [50.34.17.238]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp1.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF6962CA28; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Alan DeKok' <aland@deployingradius.com>, radext@ietf.org
References: <1A5FDF7C-9E93-447E-A103-9700349CB2F5@gmail.com> <015401ce317b$4f1ad4e0$ed507ea0$@augustcellars.com> <515DF567.3010504@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <515DF567.3010504@deployingradius.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:30:52 -0700
Message-ID: <017f01ce3194$d4c25730$7e470590$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIaRpfN0dt2jFAPTnJJfl3J6VKbMAGwh6eoAupRcI6YCcWW0A==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [radext] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 00:31:29 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@deployingradius.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 2:49 PM
> To: Jim Schaad; radext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [radext] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04
> 
> Jim Schaad wrote:
> > Alan,
> >
> > I am having a problem with the following new text
> >
> > The client MUST, however, accept RADIUS/UDP
> >    responses to any outstanding requests.
> >
> > Under what circumstances do you believe that it would be a good idea
> > to accept a RADIUS/UDP response to a RADIUS/DTLS request?
> 
>   Never.  The idea was to allow transition from UDP to DTLS.  There will
be
> outstanding UDP packets, and the client should accept responses to those
> packets.

What are you trying to say with this sentence, because I don't understand
it.

Jim

> 
> > s/practive/practice/
> 
>   Fixed, thanks.
> 
>   Alan DeKok.

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status