Re: [radext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-05.txt

On 18/03/2014 14:27, Alan DeKok wrote:
> Alejandro Perez Mendez wrote:
>> we could extend that line to something like:
>>
>> The
>>     authors acknowledge this is formally violating [RFC2865], but no
>>     operational issues are expected as no known implementation
>>     perform that verification when proxying Access-Requests, since doing so would
>>     preclude them to support future extensions.
>    Perhaps this (word-smithing)
>
> The authors acknowledge that this specification violates the "MUST"
> requirement of [RFC2865] Section 4.1.  We note that a proxy which
> enforces that requirement would be unable to support future RADIUS
> authentication extensions.  Extensions to the protocol would therefore
> be impossible to deploy.
>
> All known implementations have chosen the philosophy of "be liberal in
> what you accept".  That is, they accept traffic which violates the
> requirement of [RFC2865] Section 4.1.  We therefore expect to see no
> operational issues with this specification.  After we gain more
> operational experience with this specification, it can be re-issued as a
> standards track document, and update [RFC2865].
To answer Alejandro's question here: If the WG is fine with this, I'm fine.

Regards, Benoit
>
>    Alan DeKok.
>
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
>