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

Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> Fri, 20 January 2017 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <lbartholomew@amsl.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 874E312956C; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:12:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VkOV9ZOjM-AY; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:12:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F68412956A; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:12:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F911E565F; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:12:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3OO5FqYeoUpa; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:12:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:646:8f00:be20:8c34:2c21:f31:d958] (unknown [IPv6:2601:646:8f00:be20:8c34:2c21:f31:d958]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1A301E565E; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:12:05 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7BEEC42D-DAB6-4066-B40B-58E1C1944869"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <8DD90954-7366-41D9-A2F0-72BF5901B453@emc.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:12:27 -0800
Message-Id: <81E6CD72-5491-45F0-A4D0-6DAFE090163D@amsl.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> <8DD90954-7366-41D9-A2F0-72BF5901B453@emc.com>
To: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <Kathleen.Moriarty@dell.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/awGC6S-ITdYzQAGcZVKUrclKQ90>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 01:27:48 -0800
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, "radext-ads@ietf.org" <radext-ads@ietf.org>, Winter Stefan <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "radext-chairs@ietf.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: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:12:31 -0000

Dear Kathleen,

Thank you very much for the prompt reply.  No rush -- we just wanted to make sure we were using the correct email address for you.

Thanks again!

RFC Editor/lb


On Jan 20, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen <Kathleen.Moriarty@dell.com> wrote:

> Hi Lynne,
> 
> Thank you, I'll look at this tonight.  The gmail address is correct, but these messages are consistently getting lost or filed wrong, so I need to figure that out.
> 
> Kathleen 
> 
> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>