Re: [radext] Update RFC 6929 in draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation

"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Tue, 25 March 2014 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B174D1A0265 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ifqz_3nb8e80 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.pacifier.net (smtp3.pacifier.net [64.255.237.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0801A0262 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Philemon (static-50-34-22-58.evrt.wa.frontiernet.net [50.34.22.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp3.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E76838F20; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: "'Stefan Winter'" <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, <radext@ietf.org>
References: <53285DE2.9040802@cisco.com> <035801cf42d2$99464b80$cbd2e280$@augustcellars.com> <5328C172.5080305@deployingradius.com> <53303FB2.8090002@restena.lu> <53313E73.4030502@um.es> <53314783.6070802@restena.lu>
In-Reply-To: <53314783.6070802@restena.lu>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:56:03 -0700
Message-ID: <082b01cf486c$a2e18430$e8a48c90$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHG4DswLDcHlHX0C+rPNIfO2Yg3wAI7OYFVActqnzUBuwTcfwGFM9EvA0O7iyaarsPEMA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/bv_p3zB8xewweXpFMenQV0F_0iI
Subject: Re: [radext] Update RFC 6929 in draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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 Mar 2014 20:57:57 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: radext [mailto:radext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stefan Winter
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:08 AM
> To: radext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [radext] Update RFC 6929 in draft-ietf-radext-radius-
> fragmentation
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > I think it is a good idea to have such a section, specially is you
> > think it will be requested by ops-dir reviewers if not present. I
> > would place it as section 10, right before "Security considerations"
> > section, instead of in the Introduction section, to avoid basing the
> > explanations on something that has not been described yet.
> 
> Great, please go ahead.
> 
> > I also think that the "formal violation..." discussion should be moved
> > here. We could also include the "proxying based on User-Name"
> > restriction too.
> 
> Sounds like a reasonable move to me.
> 
> Note that none of this removes the need for the working group to settle on
> the questions:
> 
> - should we try to achieve an "Updates" relationship to RFC6929?

yes

> - should there be an IANA registry for the flags of extended attributes?

no - unless the updates fails for some reason.  A registry seems like
overkill unless we think there are going to be a number of updates

jim

> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Stefan Winter
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alejandro
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> Stefan Winter
> >>
> >>>> I believe that this update relationship needs to be retained.
> >>>   It may be useful, but IETF process may forbid it.
> >>>
> >>>   Alan DeKok.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> radext mailing list
> >>> radext@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> radext mailing list
> >> radext@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > radext mailing list
> > radext@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Stefan WINTER
> Ingenieur de Recherche
> Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de
> la Recherche 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
> L-1359 Luxembourg
> 
> Tel: +352 424409 1
> Fax: +352 422473
> 
> PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the
recipient's key
> is known to me
> 
> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC6
> 6