Re: [radext] [AD] AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> Fri, 13 January 2017 18:11 UTC
Return-Path: <lbartholomew@amsl.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 454221294F5; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:11:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, 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 rJWB4xF4It8U; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:11:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1953A1293FC; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:11:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69B41E5663; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:11:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GTw-q2xniP7s; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:11:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.12] (c-67-188-82-176.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.82.176]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFAB71E5661; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:11:15 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2A1A1379-8F1B-4FCF-A8F3-04EFF3DDC36B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH6DjWip-Sr=0hRnKz4M5HwrW0H1pY5vAZE_sQHMDWgj9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:11:38 -0800
Message-Id: <438C29BB-EB6E-4D10-A538-B0C0F9DACC68@amsl.com>
References: <20170109233022.14EE5B81304@rfc-editor.org> <CAHbuEH7A2+WyuexCVtFsk8bFGMG5nqOEDwbZY12oVgmwZtaJ5w@mail.gmail.com> <FF91E7C3-72C4-4F77-A957-ED8219B9C523@freeradius.org> <CAHbuEH7-E9VUH+ZxJdqQpr=hjhKFf0obEPLKZLwJHUZBmqF21w@mail.gmail.com> <F1A445D1-C233-41AF-9E1D-8DE50E8DF092@gmail.com> <CAHbuEH6DjWip-Sr=0hRnKz4M5HwrW0H1pY5vAZE_sQHMDWgj9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/IGfoYUlazPqvkDUBVtkG3-VkcoI>
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, radext-ads@ietf.org, Winter Stefan <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, radext-chairs@ietf.org, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] [AD] AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:11:41 -0000
Dear Kathleen, Thank you for the email. It is not clear to us how best to update this document. Would the following be correct? OLD: Updates: 2865, 3162, 6158, 6572 NEW: Updates: 2865, 3162, 4072, 6158, 6572, 7268 OLD: This document updates RFCs 2865, 3162, 6158, and 6572. NEW: This document updates RFCs 2865, 3162, 4072, 6158, 6572, and 7268. Thank you. RFC Editor/lb On Jan 13, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I think we have agreement to continue moving forward, just noting the 'updates' since it is not a significant update. > > Thank you, > Kathleen > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote: > Data types do not affect what is actually sent on the wire, they just make it easier for a RADIUS server to add support for an attribute without custom code. So the datatypes draft does not create a deployment blocker or backward compatibility issue, it actually may make implementation easier. > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Adding the IESG and the working group to see if there are any concerns with the following approach... inline >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org> wrote: >> >> > > > a) RFCs 4072 and 7268 are not cited anywhere in this document. >> > > > Please let us know where they should be cited; otherwise, the >> > > > listings will be removed. >> > > >> > > The RFCs are referenced simply because this document is updating >> > > attributes that they define. >> > >> > Can you please list the specific updates from the 2 mentioned RFCs here and then I'll figure out if this needs to go back through the WG and last calls or not. >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types/radius-types.xhtml#radius-types-2 >> >> RFC 4072 defines EAP-Key-Name. It's in the RADIUS space, but t's defined to have a Diameter data type "OctetString". We can't use "OctetString" for a RADIUS data types, so the "data types" document defines it as the RADIUS data type "string". Which ends up being the same for all intents and purposes. >> >> RFC 7268 defines a bunch of attributes. Most are of 32-bit integers, which maps well to the data types doc. The only real "new" thing is EAPoL-Announcement. It's defined manually in RFC 7268 as "concatenate the fragments together before looking at it". The data types doc calls this out as a special data type "concat", along with EAP-Message, and a few others. >> >> I think everyone is in agreement as to what the data types should be. The "updates RFC 4072 / 7268" note is really saying "RFC 4072 / 7268 talks about this attribute, but doesn't really give an adequate definition for it. So the data types document picks something, which is compatible with the original definition, but uses a now-standard data type" >> >> i.e. the original spec isn't so much wrong, as unclear and incomplete. >> >> This seems like a small enough 'updates' that I think it should be fine to progress just adding the note that RFC4072 and RFC7268 are updated. >> >> Any objections? The alternative would be to put this back through the last call process, but I think this looks small enough to avoid that. It would really just be for process sake IMO. >> >> >> Alan DeKok. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> Kathleen >> _______________________________________________ >> radext mailing list >> radext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Kathleen
- Re: [radext] [AD] AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ie… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [radext] [AD] AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ie… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [radext] [AD] AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ie… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [radext] [AD] AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ie… Lynne Bartholomew
- [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-i… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <dra… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <dra… Moriarty, Kathleen
- Re: [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <dra… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <dra… kathleen.moriarty.ietf
- Re: [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <dra… Lynne Bartholomew
- [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-i… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <dra… Alan DeKok
- Re: [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <dra… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <dra… Kathleen Moriarty