Re: [radext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5176 (4311)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

I haven't seen any discussion on this from the Radext WG.  The report looks
reasonable and make sense to me, but would like to hear from the chairs to
confirm.  Since this is getting addressed in a new draft, I would be
included to mark this as "Hold for Document Update".  This puts the errata
with this draft (it's not rejected) and can be added to a new revision of
this particular draft if it gets updated in the future.

Please let me know if you agree/disagree and I'll mark it appropriately.

Thanks!

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:50 PM, RFC Errata System <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5176,
> "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote Authentication Dial In User
> Service (RADIUS)".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5176&eid=4311
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: 2.3
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> Section 2.3 says:
>
>       In CoA-Request and Disconnect-Request packets, all attributes MUST
>       be treated as mandatory.
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> In CoA-Request and Disconnect-Request packets, all attributes MUST
> be treated as mandatory, except Proxy-State.  See Section 3.1 for a
> discussion of how the NAS must handle Proxy-State.
>
> Notes
> -----
> This was seen with vendor equipment.  CoA proxying was done to the NAS,
> and the proxy was adding and forwarding Proxy-State as required by Section
> 3.1.  However, the NAS was returning a CoA-NAK with Error-Cause =
> Unsupported-Attribute.
>
> The issue comes because Proxy-State is called out in Section 3.1 for
> special handling.  However, that special handling isn't called out in
> Section 2.3.  As a result, implementors can get confused.
>
> The RADEXT WG is rechartering with a document to address CoA proxying.  We
> will also be addressing this issue in that document.  There are additional
> attributes which a NAS should ignore, OR which should be filtered out by
> the proxy closest to the NAS.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5176 (draft-ietf-radext-rfc3576bis-13)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
> Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
> Publication Date    : January 2008
> Author(s)           : M. Chiba, G. Dommety, M. Eklund, D. Mitton, B. Aboba
> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> Source              : RADIUS EXTensions
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen