IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Fri, 05 April 2013 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.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 2051121F9677 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 rRE1ruRqeU-Y for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [88.190.25.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF4421F9673 for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CD92240D25; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 03:51:29 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at power.freeradius.org
Received: from power.freeradius.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (power.freeradius.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hsGbief8EUYm; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 03:51:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Thor-2.local (unknown [70.50.217.204]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE7AC2240C73; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 03:51:25 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <515E2E1C.30902@deployingradius.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:51:24 -0400
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
References: <1A5FDF7C-9E93-447E-A103-9700349CB2F5@gmail.com> <015401ce317b$4f1ad4e0$ed507ea0$@augustcellars.com> <515DF567.3010504@deployingradius.com> <017f01ce3194$d4c25730$7e470590$@augustcellars.com>
In-Reply-To: <017f01ce3194$d4c25730$7e470590$@augustcellars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: radext@ietf.org
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 01:51:32 -0000

Jim Schaad wrote:
> What are you trying to say with this sentence, because I don't understand
> it.

  What Sam said.  Configuring DTLS on a running RADIUS client.

a) Send Access-Request 1
b) admin configures DTLS
c) Send DTLS encapsulated Access-Request 2
d) Receive Access-Accept 1  ---> do ?????


  I think it should accept the Access-Request 1 from step (d).  After
all, it's a signed response to an Access-Request sent by the client.  It
would be bad to ignore the Access-Request because "DTLS is now configured".

  i.e. When DTLS is configured, it means that *new* Access-Requests
should use DTLS.

  It doesn't mean that all traffic is required to be DTLS.  That will
happen over time as RADIUS/UDP traffic gets responses, or is timed out.

  Suggestions for clear text in the document are welcomed.

  Alan DeKok.

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