IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Implementation inventions

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Mon, 07 August 2023 21:33 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 4C69FC169515 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 LC8UEVx-bc6f for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:33:05 -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 CFB9DC16950A for <radext@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (135-23-95-173.cpe.pppoe.ca [135.23.95.173]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E925D303; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 21:32:59 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <SN4PR10MB5589C79F441AFBB72493DA84A10CA@SN4PR10MB5589.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2023 17:32:58 -0400
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4625416-E62C-45F9-ABDF-3FDF3034511C@deployingradius.com>
References: <2B40BD0B-8C16-491C-90F8-B744F2E4E2D3@deployingradius.com> <SN4PR10MB5589C79F441AFBB72493DA84A10CA@SN4PR10MB5589.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
To: Michael Sym <msym@singledigits.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/b6cVGnWxoryRwsIUlt-HaORZDbs>
Subject: Re: [radext] Implementation inventions
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: Mon, 07 Aug 2023 21:33:09 -0000

On Aug 7, 2023, at 5:20 PM, Michael Sym <msym@singledigits.com> wrote:
> 
> Great list, Alan.  We’ve unfortunately seen so many of these “inventive” behaviors.  And are trying to address the garbage Acct-Input/Output-Octets values in WBA’s RADIUS Accounting Assurance work area.
>  
> I wholeheartedly agree with the challenge in reliably tying accounting packets to an authentication.  That would be an extremely helpful missing piece for this group to address.  Requiring “Acct-Session-Id” and/or “Acct-Multi-Session-Id” in Access-Requests could be a good place to start.

  Part of the interest in posting the list is to get input from other people who've seen additional issues.

  I'm not sure if the WG has opinions on a new document "Issues and fixes part 2", or even pushing 2866 to Standards track.  Both of those ideas have a "here be dragons" label in my mind.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status