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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Wed, 11 January 2017 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.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 87F481297E1; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 RZB-FqbLGmrj; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x242.google.com (mail-pf0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36AEE12956F; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id f144so14582305pfa.2; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=rGgCdnQcD7aUy5yJ91lgK1BUIeL3UtPQ4vrVUaXVAzw=; b=DBL7axSSPiDdXMk9ifKLGFDb7t6+oW8tusjDDk0aKYS8902W6kG1oTPf3BfldbI5By 4shErLyg/wA6sOZuUmHmMdSRs+xfL1UNS5kgjIHCxSGfTridG5qa1W9URTQnD3+RxLon OFAnSlPkbL9sEVRMbL+AdqYb+JlWmjBZ+IT+8aMwVlBdTCeXmHgFsxqCZHbkBsVAjda2 LiUaPn9AsetyQWPH+OMKOOD1zRpnzptSvDMClBREJ7LdqB7LstnvozOmEMwym5CN6fpd dd8X7PZsmSk4LelprdJkK8yPco9ml8DRwnCZVyoYF9gGutqK1S7xIMQ8Njbii3dXnCHO TAkQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=rGgCdnQcD7aUy5yJ91lgK1BUIeL3UtPQ4vrVUaXVAzw=; b=kTfORlGsu+XTJOUodWUkcgmsD7h0CLpRM1Ob+s9ofgV1wo03uNxd9iS4YqsjpUG/Yd mt7/InQG5ue8/OaYnJ3J/H41UdklN/ld19G0jZETxGatSohN/IVmyhKIOyQX4nP3Dtzl 9DOmzJTwlWw3lXNeFF3mdmSHHSx9rRSMOPaZsbme34MfCDGYs29yhZ0Bo4MAwvSwzfEV oz57wKP7SwD/q+4OSEvRzVhzuiZ2m/Wvjuy2bmy/9v51g3ZQrWy67GfnMMF9VjTkJMwB kE5ELnlHE+kEbhTyOCHX0zi+AgXVAZh8ADuEQeIBkHQ5BtgJ/LhUf4qi1E3VY7HKWXbC ZMqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJHZ1S7hV9ZrnQMTyFGxk2hnY1mAn3O/TJmhyUBcXX+m3cBofK6QLelh0u9P/dMqA==
X-Received: by 10.84.218.132 with SMTP id r4mr15994471pli.23.1484166508740; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.77.140.39] (mobile-166-176-184-137.mycingular.net. [166.176.184.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h4sm1391439pfk.96.2017.01.11.12.28.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:27 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-C5F61CF7-890C-43A0-8F56-4CC6F6E00823
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14C92)
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH7-E9VUH+ZxJdqQpr=hjhKFf0obEPLKZLwJHUZBmqF21w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:28:26 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <F1A445D1-C233-41AF-9E1D-8DE50E8DF092@gmail.com>
References: <20170109233022.14EE5B81304@rfc-editor.org> <CAHbuEH7A2+WyuexCVtFsk8bFGMG5nqOEDwbZY12oVgmwZtaJ5w@mail.gmail.com> <FF91E7C3-72C4-4F77-A957-ED8219B9C523@freeradius.org> <CAHbuEH7-E9VUH+ZxJdqQpr=hjhKFf0obEPLKZLwJHUZBmqF21w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/TilM70YbZfP6kzthpPrWvjqTOco>
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, radext-ads@ietf.org, Winter Stefan <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>, radext-chairs@ietf.org, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [radext] [AD] AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 20:28:31 -0000

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