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

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