Re: [radext] A way forward with the DTLS document - a poll for WG consensus

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 25 June 2013 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@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 B1EAF11E814B for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Aov0Lu5+d2qS for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ea0-x22f.google.com (mail-ea0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C0D11E8147 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ea0-f175.google.com with SMTP id z7so6934034eaf.6 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:x-priority:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=edBGe2L44YLYxbTwPwDYinWRln2FODDzRGye4I3g50c=; b=gytuSeICXv+HshkgZlbqDQawHYIh8uztbD3JJ7wOU5CmJCwZKgD7BEwaewr69OTqxV ElCuRoCqBgjLy7EfpjKmHlYlsg5tsR9Dc9QaGN3xg5YXQx8p8Qni0yH5kd9ML4NZo79n Abl8k4Rkdvs59W+vJ+SsICtCgZfzfyPxxE82xMO0NO2SyaFxNAvi5ktttpywSWS3lN3W ykqDnnsrOkLuNw4V+qcWgWS5S8H9cg9d4deg55maFoa5Zrh1bptB/TYr1BjzkmITxZWQ qFNeas1jzdO4TZ5t3Uf/vIFVI2XiEvsvPikw9elRGX301oziDaL18TGRGQKTqgTKMG0q KrNg==
X-Received: by 10.15.101.13 with SMTP id bo13mr406991eeb.141.1372188466829; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:2d53:9391:201a:faba? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:2d53:9391:201a:faba]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b7sm38136351eef.16.2013.06.25.12.27.44 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Priority: 1
In-Reply-To: <7A3DC30B-CBEF-4B4B-B542-89CAB29682BC@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:25:28 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <931FBC29-0F1D-49DD-BB9E-01FC802C024E@gmail.com>
References: <516EA97E.2000005@deployingradius.com> <C47910C2-BCEA-4DC2-A016-C98D67B62DD9@gmail.com> <A95B4818FD85874D8F16607F1AC7C628B4032E@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <0E1BBA4B-1985-43C3-800A-AF336CABEF30@gmail.com> <517FBD04.1050009@deployingradius.com> <B43B810F-DBF3-4CCD-BFA0-494E10819D2A@gmail.com> <51828E77.9020303@deployingradius.com> <061B9149-3354-4E53-8721-FCD86BF03EF0@gmail.com> <A95B4818FD85874D8F16607F1AC7C628BC542F@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <7A3DC30B-CBEF-4B4B-B542-89CAB29682BC@gmail.com>
To: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] A way forward with the DTLS document - a poll for WG consensus
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:27:52 -0000

Folks,

We can conclude that alternative #1 got most rough consensus to it. 
So this is where the I-D will head to. And we already had consensus
earlier that we will use the existing RADSEC port for DTLS.

- Jouni



On Jun 18, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Folks,
> 
> We still have a sticking issue with the DTLS document on protocol
> multiplexing raised by Joe, see:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext/current/msg08459.html
> 
> So, in order to progress things and get the (rough) WG consensus
> what to include in the document, We ask the WG to pick up their
> favourite approach from the two choices below. This poll ends on
> Tuesday 25th June EOB (EEST).
> 
> 1) Forbid the protocol multiplexing i.e.,
>   require RADIUS over port 1812.
> 
> 2) Allow protocol multiplexing i.e.,
>   Allow RADIUS or DTLS over port 1812.
> 
> In both cases, DTLS would be allowed on the DTLS-only TBD port.
> The DTLS document will then be changed accordingly to reflect
> the WG consensus.
> 
> 
> - Jouni & Mauricio