IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Extended IDs

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 28 November 2017 16:16 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 412F2126B72 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:16:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 9VSDpDa8OAzi for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:16:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839961286B1 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:16:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.20.53] (CPEf4cc55220745-CM64777ddff610.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.248.225.186]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87FAA16B; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:16:03 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <dfd0ff02-c9e8-7253-4fb4-1e6def3e93b2@restena.lu>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 11:16:01 -0500
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4B9DD54-859E-4EDC-9596-6D2274E9F367@deployingradius.com>
References: <fef698a5-9802-c9be-04d7-1e869651c988@restena.lu> <dfd0ff02-c9e8-7253-4fb4-1e6def3e93b2@restena.lu>
To: Winter Stefan <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/Jrwc-U3VvB2yDXXlKg7XuqBetQs>
Subject: Re: [radext] Extended IDs
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, 28 Nov 2017 16:16:12 -0000

On Nov 28, 2017, at 8:54 AM, Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> wrote:
> In your reply to this call for adoption, please indicate which of the
> two drafts you think should be adopted. You can of course also indicate
> that none of the two are fit for purpose. The only thing you really
> shouldn't do is to vote for both; that wouldn't help the discussion move on.

  I prefer draft-dekok-radext-request-authenticator-02

  If the WG decides to use draft-chen-radext-identifier-attr-02, then I believe it needs significant changes before it's ready for publication:

- use of "ad hoc" complex data type violates RFC 6929 Section 6.3

- the negotiation can be simplified with no loss of functionality.  See my draft for examples.

- there is minimal discussion as to how this affects proxies, TCP, UDP, etc. 

- there is minimal discussion of inter-operability considerations with existing RADIUS solutions

- there are few guidelines for implementors

  While some WG members may prefer the technical solution in draft-chen-radext-identifier-attr-02, I think everyone can agree that the other proposal has these issues exhaustively enumerated and discussed.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email