IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Small issues in the ALPN draft

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Wed, 20 March 2024 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.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 8B561C14F6F2 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JBTBm890IAtt for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D750C14F680 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (dhcp-8619.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.134.25]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1590303; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 03:40:21 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <E2A51B6B-A621-41B7-8371-B5110AD29624@deployingradius.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:40:19 +1000
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D89A6464-F531-4EB0-9D6C-3F93923C8702@deployingradius.com>
References: <3a5885c2-fa5a-4aae-a1f4-e79b9456ad94@dfn.de> <3C061F54-4D3A-4523-AC5B-E744A22A8EA3@deployingradius.com> <c1a00b2f-e716-4e8e-87d3-0d8dedeb8957@dfn.de> <E2A51B6B-A621-41B7-8371-B5110AD29624@deployingradius.com>
To: Jan-Frederik Rieckers <rieckers@dfn.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/YXeQBXGWmlhARu7JeAzDnZQ4wYM>
Subject: Re: [radext] Small issues in the ALPN draft
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 20 Mar 2024 03:40:26 -0000

On Mar 20, 2024, at 1:35 PM, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
>  The issue isn't token re-use.  That's fine.  The issue is sending two different packets with the same Token.
> 
>  i.e. where packet 1 is sent with token A, and then *before* a reply comes back, the client sends packet 2 with token B.

  Sorry:  

  Where packet 1 is sent with token A, and then *before* a reply comes back, the client sends packet 2 with token A

  So the server now needs to reply to two different packets, both with Token A.  So which one is "correct" ?

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email