[radext] radius fragmentation: why not EAP message
Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Tue, 04 March 2014 15:38 UTC
Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.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 4BA7C1A0154 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:38:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] 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 KnQTSsdnp7DE for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:38:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9157B1A005E for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:38:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2DD2068D for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:33:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8W66MyDa8uEK for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:33:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (dhcp-9ca7.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.156.167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:33:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 0B34083F21; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:38:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: radext@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:38:13 -0500
Message-ID: <tslppm2vusa.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/dTO98dgcX6Ct6RW2ZNCkTJOV64Y
Subject: [radext] radius fragmentation: why not EAP message
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, 04 Mar 2014 15:38:24 -0000
My rationale for objecting to an EAP message is that if a proxy fails with fragmentation, it probably intends to drop new stuff. We should not standardize mechanisms designed to get around intentional proxy configuration. --Sam