RE: RFC 3580 Errata Submisssion

"Congdon, Paul T (ProCurve)" <paul.congdon@hp.com> Sat, 13 September 2008 06:16 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC693A6C28 for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DBXu2rxYHPDi for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039853A67FD for <radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 23:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KeOLb-000KJT-7G for radiusext-data@psg.com; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:11:07 +0000
Received: from [15.192.0.43] (helo=g5t0006.atlanta.hp.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <paul.congdon@hp.com>) id 1KeOLN-000KI9-Ng for radiusext@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:11:03 +0000
Received: from G3W0630.americas.hpqcorp.net (g3w0630.americas.hpqcorp.net [16.233.58.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g5t0006.atlanta.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AE0C092; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:10:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from G5W0325.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.228.8.67) by G3W0630.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.233.58.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.263.0; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:09:22 +0000
Received: from GVW0671EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.230.34.4]) by G5W0325.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.228.8.67]) with mapi; Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:09:21 +0000
From: "Congdon, Paul T (ProCurve)" <paul.congdon@hp.com>
To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net>, 'Bernard Aboba' <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com>, "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:09:19 +0000
Subject: RE: RFC 3580 Errata Submisssion
Thread-Topic: RFC 3580 Errata Submisssion
Thread-Index: AckVEk9BeLjGKyZMS0Gz3inq7sBaAAAEj8RgABBpiYA=
Message-ID: <FF279C1430421C43B7E0C519F5D50FA33C13695EF7@GVW0671EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
References: <BLU137-DAV10BDD4AEAD454E319CAC5493510@phx.gbl> <000f01c91525$915ec450$b41c4cf0$@net>
In-Reply-To: <000f01c91525$915ec450$b41c4cf0$@net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FF279C1430421C43B7E0C519F5D50FA33C13695EF7GVW0671EXCame_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI=
X-Whitelist: TRUE
Sender: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <radiusext.ops.ietf.org>

802.1 is concerned with canonical format or non-canonical format because they have to 'sometimes' bridge between two LAN segments that have different representations.  As long as the NAS always uses the same format on every request it should give the desired behavior, though I agree it would eliminate more confusion if it were explicitly stated as needing to be one way or the other since the AAA server is presumably using this value as well.  I don't think collisions are likely.  Doesn't seem like a reason to fix the document.  Most people got this right, or at least checked the document before implementing something else.

Paul

From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Glen Zorn
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 3:19 PM
To: 'Bernard Aboba'; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: RFC 3580 Errata Submisssion

Comments?
A couple:

Why would the "bridge or Access Point MAC address" be conveyed in the Calling-Station-Id Attribute?
The example in the corrected text is incorrect (the '.' should be outside the quotes, not inside).
This Errata seems to be editorial rather than technical to me, since AFAICT the change wouldn't modify the on-wire representation of the Attribute.


________________________________________
From: RFC Errata System [rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 12:54 PM
To: paul_congdon@hp.com; Bernard Aboba; ah_smith@acm.org; jjr@enterasys.com; gwz@cisco.com; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: avi@bridgewatersystems.com
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3580 (1503)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3580,
"IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Usage Guidelines".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3580&eid=1503

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>

Section: 3.21

Original Text
-------------
For IEEE 802.1X Authenticators, this attribute is used to store the
   Supplicant MAC address in ASCII format (upper case only), with octet
   values separated by a "-".  Example: "00-10-A4-23-19-C0".

Corrected Text
--------------
For IEEE Std 802.1X-2001 authenticators, this attribute is used to store the bridge or Access Point MAC
address, represented as an ASCII character string in Canonical format (see IEEE Std 802). For example,
&#147;00-10-A4-23-19-C0.&#148;

Notes
-----
The IETF Informational RFC needed to specify that the representation of the MAC address is in Canonical Format.

This is the case in the IEEE document 802_1x-2001 which is the corrected text provided.

I would be okay if the authors wanted to use Supplicant MAC address instead of "bridge or Access Point" in the proposed corrected text.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata 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 (RFC Editor & Editorial Board)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC3580 ( draft-congdon-radius-8021x-29)
--------------------------------------
Title               : IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Usage Guidelines
Publication Date    : September 2003
Author(s)           : P. Congdon, B. Aboba, A. Smith, G. Zorn, J. Roese
Category            : INFORMATIONAL
Source              : INDEPENDENT
Area                : N/A
Stream              : INDEPENDENT
Verifying Party     : RFC Editor & Editorial Board