IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Thu, 04 April 2013 21:28 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 8D9DE21F8BBB for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:28:48 -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 h7XFBSSvtehR for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.pacifier.net (smtp1.pacifier.net [64.255.237.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAF821F8BA4 for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Philemon (173-160-230-154-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.160.230.154]) (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 3F6D52CA3D; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
References: <1A5FDF7C-9E93-447E-A103-9700349CB2F5@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1A5FDF7C-9E93-447E-A103-9700349CB2F5@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:28:11 -0700
Message-ID: <015401ce317b$4f1ad4e0$ed507ea0$@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: AQIaRpfN0dt2jFAPTnJJfl3J6VKbMJguaJ9Q
Content-Language: en-us
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:28:48 -0000

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?  This text appears to
imply that there is one but I have a hard time understanding this as
anything but a security problem.



s/practive/practice/


jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: radext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:radext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Jouni
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:38 PM
> To: radext@ietf.org
> Cc: radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [radext] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04
> 
> Folks,
> 
> This email starts a quick one week WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04;
> "DTLS as a Transport Layer for RADIUS". The WGLC ends on Tuesday, 9th
April.
> 
> Post your comments to the list and enter them also into Issue Tracker.
> 
> 
> - Jouni & Mauricio
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

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