Re: [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-nai-03
Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Mon, 10 June 2013 14:00 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 74B9B21F871D for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 07:00:33 -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 m1nyXJUuuj-G for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 07:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE58921F93B7 for <radext@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 07:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202572016A; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:00:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ESVLsYHT4gzG; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:00:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-98-216-0-82.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [98.216.0.82]) (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; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:00:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 3A5A98053B; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:00:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
References: <BLU169-W136C0681F857DF43804AC17939B0@phx.gbl> <51B3E6FB.5040606@deployingradius.com> <BLU169-W56D7E99BC62DD745D09C87939B0@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:00:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W56D7E99BC62DD745D09C87939B0@phx.gbl> (Bernard Aboba's message of "Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:54:43 -0700")
Message-ID: <tslk3m2vzf5.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-nai-03
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: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:00:33 -0000
For what it's worth, I continue to believe that Bernard may have a point and that we need to engage with the apps community to resolve the question of normalization. I'm not particularly worried about the HTTP/SIP/etc points Bernard raises. I think that there is some semantic ambiguity there, and I'm not against improvements in the text, but I don't see that as a blocking concern. I think that the ambiguity is unlikely to result in problems in practice that do not already exist. --Sam
- [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-nai-03 Bernard Aboba
- Re: [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-nai-03 Alan DeKok
- Re: [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-nai-03 Bernard Aboba
- Re: [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-nai-03 Alan DeKok
- Re: [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-nai-03 Sam Hartman