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

kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com Sat, 21 January 2017 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@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 E688B129B08; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:34:05 -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 kGsAi8vOAu1j; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:34:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x241.google.com (mail-io0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::241]) (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 ECA3B129B17; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:34:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x241.google.com with SMTP id q20so10834411ioi.3; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:34:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=cWAJJPU+NKnM6E/OkmiQp3GEYdDi9TtK0mhXyIubJI4=; b=LmYud1xuZeOsOQptDA6qOpRubpg/am6ncPgjji5CROyEBw8sfK1W+aHJTYz++iFx/0 rTw/0U4J9vWpa4xjap6ljqkkew+tw6KSNova85TK8qf9dfcso9T1wcU6LreZMzono0kB W7B/tiSkr1YehrhKqgraMlazEOVVD+cdVmwbRoR2n8cjgqAh8OzLNwfvLMGD8Qxvi+/W SUQL/tAdcREHOm4pYXB9P0NCfu05iFKmW+KmLKUrDC1d2VLBwS2lmNjTKbUYEekZgsRk nAHdX+Ipyt67DT1v5KcAl7Lu4lMbbTwvj8vJ+BaFGM/KfaYZMQHG1jtHuvsO3d/DH8FL Y3Ww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=cWAJJPU+NKnM6E/OkmiQp3GEYdDi9TtK0mhXyIubJI4=; b=YZsuOoawNNRQ+1cKjMT/t0wvQQSbb/p9aaODCAfuq7PZbuw2stc3Mrd+iki/VUB+I2 vKtRR4ZRav77AFucfwlQBVWHTTwJZ+xaT27jD8z1ZBBxmyZ8KaqlGZ+lPY7DXbRgqFkP VFNOHRftFUKpnZmVGj3jbL7NJ+USlvOSjKtnDKm7rswjDL8M6gGSn/CWCyqWimWr8PmM HJ4w2tDJfgiyYjBeNEXfy0tlBMsTsj0e7eEjX3jYCqoh9ObNPuAEvzZBPZBtD95CVoJU nW0zVAl87RRB5xAHnmdrpQhG9zRvlIRSW6yi77AMFEgxV50BU68Apc2shU1jb0GW0BMa Y5Iw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIDBTDY+9teX0QoFuAQUua3kxVVBKSw5khQl1NiQe8FnFwKpH3J6P90P8Ou4xOvMA==
X-Received: by 10.107.164.147 with SMTP id d19mr17958371ioj.79.1485012842344; Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:34:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.241.155.134] ([166.170.21.49]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o1sm3246648itg.4.2017.01.21.07.34.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:34:01 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4ADB7164-6395-4B51-9463-A3C9EC208472
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:22:02 -0500
Message-Id: <3058D945-CC06-43FD-96FC-80542EA31C96@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> <F1A445D1-C233-41AF-9E1D-8DE50E8DF092@gmail.com> <CAHbuEH6DjWip-Sr=0hRnKz4M5HwrW0H1pY5vAZE_sQHMDWgj9Q@mail.gmail.com> <438C29BB-EB6E-4D10-A538-B0C0F9DACC68@amsl.com> <6A026C96-7C9B-4217-BEE1-E78FCB13487E@amsl.com> <967AA9E0-EC69-475E-8F61-CFF4837A3CD6@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <967AA9E0-EC69-475E-8F61-CFF4837A3CD6@amsl.com>
To: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14C92)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/XCLrhCJODXaHaBvzBy56W41wsOw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 01:27:48 -0800
Cc: Kathleen.Moriarty@dell.com, radext-ads@ietf.org, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, Winter Stefan <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, radext-chairs@ietf.org, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] *[AD] Re: 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: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:34:06 -0000

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
>>> 
>> 
>