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

Dear Lynne,

Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device 

> On Jan 20, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Kathleen,
> 
> Sending this email to your Dell address, in case the Gmail address is no longer correct.
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
>> On Jan 20, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear *Kathleen,
>> 
>> We do not believe that we have heard from you regarding our question below.  Please review, and let us know how this document should be updated.
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> RFC Editor/lb
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Kathleen,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the email.
>>> 
>>> It is not clear to us how best to update this document.  Would the following be correct?
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> Updates: 2865, 3162, 6158, 6572
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> Updates: 2865, 3162, 4072, 6158, 6572, 7268
>>> 
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> This document updates RFCs 2865, 3162, 6158, and 6572.
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> This document updates RFCs 2865, 3162, 4072, 6158, 6572, and 7268.
>>> 

Yes, thank you.
Kathleen 
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 7:36 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello,
>>>> 
>>>> I think we have agreement to continue moving forward, just noting the 'updates' since it is not a significant update.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Kathleen
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Kathleen
>>> 
>> 
> 