Re: [radext] [AD] AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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