IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Extended IDs

Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> Wed, 13 December 2017 07:48 UTC

Return-Path: <enkechen@cisco.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 05B1F12700F for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 23:48:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 VTSc4gsS_XQ8 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 23:48:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1021E126C26 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 23:48:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1330; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1513151295; x=1514360895; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZUXksyxnt2g2l++P96S84p1ZFd2CIf7R37lSLz/tsPQ=; b=YW10MF8p8J2+xlbEYhKQkwZVqJsiq5qjUcEletGDoipGu/F+D/0mnG3n VytVMQdnizpxcdWu/oDol3oLoq7BIxsuirPq+mjVZq1xQv6AXU43+jnpp 0+Sj6H2YYTW89XjtD7pCdSTix5iJFMrX37bafbt5oOHNymlmMF74i+nUD Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,397,1508803200"; d="scan'208";a="334753625"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Dec 2017 07:48:14 +0000
Received: from [10.24.55.251] ([10.24.55.251]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBD7mDIU028966; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 07:48:13 GMT
To: Peter Deacon <peterd@iea-software.com>
References: <fef698a5-9802-c9be-04d7-1e869651c988@restena.lu> <dfd0ff02-c9e8-7253-4fb4-1e6def3e93b2@restena.lu> <933E6F70-A7C1-4168-9AC9-F925EF78D9E2@jisc.ac.uk> <AE2036D0-1294-45B5-A0D7-16F91E0B4248@cisco.com> <alpine.WNT.2.21.1.1712121615090.2252@smurf> <EE3BB1A7-EAD9-4BE1-9EA2-B780580E5C95@cisco.com> <alpine.WNT.2.21.1.1712121704430.2252@smurf> <B41EF4CD-309C-4E0F-BE7A-B77A244DA421@cisco.com> <alpine.WNT.2.21.1.1712121824110.2252@smurf> <313FEFCE-FD61-4394-804D-91BAE98CA687@cisco.com> <alpine.WNT.2.21.1.1712121947300.2252@smurf> <38A550CE-C1E5-441E-B25E-7E87D266F627@cisco.com> <alpine.WNT.2.21.1.1712122230570.2252@smurf> <551F795A-7385-401F-881A-EB46C9242DCC@cisco.com> <alpine.WNT.2.21.1.1712122307550.2252@smurf>
Cc: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
From: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <d930039b-53ed-78fa-2d10-b33f86cfa751@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 23:48:13 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.WNT.2.21.1.1712122307550.2252@smurf>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/TkWB4s-YD9LQjWFvUUMpBv9gQss>
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: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 07:48:17 -0000

Peter,

The "Status-Server" is used for capability negotiation by both drafts.
Neither mechanism will work with an ancient server that does not support
the "Status-server" properly.

Regards,  -- Enke

On 12/12/17 11:40 PM, Peter Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017, Naiming Shen (naiming) wrote:
> 
>> The text of draft-chen currently assumes server-status is
>> an supported option. If the radius server software does not even support this,
> 
> I will assume this means the answer to my question is nothing in the text requires status-server.
> 
>> then this extended-ID scheme more likely is not even relavent in
>> the environment. The design and implmenetation of the software should always
> 
> What is the linkage between status-server and expanded id space?
> 
>> consider the ease of operational burden as the first priority, in particular
>> this automated discovery has been around for many years. One can always
> 
> Certainly not my understanding.  The only RFC I know of "overloading" status-server for any sort of capability negotiation is RFC7930 and at least that has sense enough to be limited to stream transports.
> 
> regards,
> Peter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email