IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Wed, 03 April 2013 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.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 3E91721F8C74 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 07:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 mVGb1B+SF7GZ for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 07:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A149621F8C03 for <radext@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 07:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (unknown [10.1.10.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E604E2016B; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:44:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 401564497; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:45:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
References: <1A5FDF7C-9E93-447E-A103-9700349CB2F5@gmail.com> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1304021450180.3988@SMURF> <515C3604.3040406@deployingradius.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:45:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <515C3604.3040406@deployingradius.com> (Alan DeKok's message of "Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:00:36 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslzjxffzay.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: radext@ietf.org, Peter Deacon <peterd@iea-software.com>, radext-chairs@tools.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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:45:27 -0000

>>>>> "Alan" == Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> writes:


    Alan>   It's a trade-off with implementations.  The specs say max 4K
    Alan> RADIUS packets.  However, implementations may interpret this
    Alan> as max 4K buffer for UDP application data.  In which case the
    Alan> DTLS overhead requires that the encapsulated RADIUS packet is
    Alan> smaller.

My preference is that the spec forbid receivers from making this choice.
That is, I'd prefer that receivers MUST support a 4k RADIUS payload and
thus MUST support the necessary room for the DTLS overhead.

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status