[radext] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA allocations for RFC 5447 (attributes 124 and 125)
"Amanda Baber via RT" <iana-matrix@iana.org> Wed, 08 August 2018 01:59 UTC
Return-Path: <iana-shared@icann.org>
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 A96C3130DDA; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.18
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 52_t-2vea8Kt; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.46.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24E34127332; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from request4.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp01.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B2DE0158; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 01:59:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by request4.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 0D710207E6; Wed, 8 Aug 2018 01:59:31 +0000 (UTC)
RT-Owner: amanda.baber
From: Amanda Baber via RT <iana-matrix@iana.org>
Reply-To: iana-matrix@iana.org
In-Reply-To: <rt-4.4.3-5784-1533629029-1033.1118137-7-0@icann.org>
References: <RT-Ticket-1118137@icann.org> <1650f1cabeb.100024af647180.2934901912766753218@ovsienko.info> <A54682E8-B80C-4992-877C-218B492882E3@deployingradius.com> <rt-4.4.3-14398-1533587606-1786.1118137-7-0@icann.org> <11227_1533629007_5B69524E_11227_192_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E3951AE20@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <rt-4.4.3-5784-1533629029-1033.1118137-7-0@icann.org>
Message-ID: <rt-4.4.3-9839-1533693570-817.1118137-7-0@icann.org>
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA
X-RT-Ticket: IANA #1118137
X-Managed-BY: RT 4.4.3 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
X-RT-Originator: amanda.baber@icann.org
CC: radext@ietf.org, lionel.morand@orange.com, kaduk@mit.edu, dime@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 01:59:31 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/iVfMx_UCaR3EZuTlLcBkPKf8_-I>
Subject: [radext] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA allocations for RFC 5447 (attributes 124 and 125)
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 01:59:35 -0000
Hi Benjamin, Given Lionel's confirmation, should we go ahead and make these changes at https://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types? OLD: 124 MIP6-Feature-Vector string [RFC5447] 125 MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix ipv6prefix [RFC5447] NEW: 124 MIP6-Feature-Vector integer64 [RFC5447] 125 MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix string [RFC5447] thanks, Amanda On Tue Aug 07 08:03:49 2018, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote: > I agree with the proposal. > It is important that the types defined in RFC5447 are the ones listed > in the IANA registry. > For information, there are existing implementations relying on these > AVPs and it is important to be consistent between the RFC and > registry. > > Regards, > > Lionel > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : radext [mailto:radext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Amanda > > Baber via > > RT > > Envoyé : lundi 6 août 2018 22:33 > > Cc : radext@ietf.org; dime@ietf.org; kaduk@mit.edu > > Objet : [radext] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA allocations for RFC > > 5447 > > (attributes 124 and 125) > > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon Aug 06 13:00:05 2018, aland@deployingradius.com wrote: > > > On Aug 6, 2018, at 8:01 AM, Denis Ovsienko <denis@ovsienko.info> > > > wrote: > > > > Recently I was reviewing some code that adds support for two RFC > > > > 5447 > > > > RADIUS AVPs below: > > > > > > > > The MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP (AVP Code 125) is of type > > > > OctetString > > > > The MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP (AVP Code 124) is of type Unsigned64 > > > > and > > > > > > > > It turned out, the current RADIUS Types registry at > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types/radius-types.xhtml > > > > lists both attributes with wrong types: > > > > > > > > 125 MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix ipv6prefix [RFC5447] > > > > > > That is definitely wrong. The "ipv6prefix" format is different > > > than > > > the one used by MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix in RFC 5337. > > > > > > > 124 MIP6-Feature-Vector string [RFC5447] > > > > > > That issue is a bit different. 64-bit integers were defined in RFC > > > 6929 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6929#section-2.5) long after > > > RFC > > > 5447 was published. > > > > > > So at the time RFC 5447 was published, "string" was the correct > > > definition. > > > > > > > Those incorrect types had propagated from the IANA registry into > > > > FreeRADIUS and Wireshark (both have been fixed now for MIP6-Home- > > > > Link-Prefix, see the discussion and the follow-ups at > > > > https://github.com/the-tcpdump-group/tcpdump/pull/636 if > > > > interested). > > > > > > > > Having studied this discrepancy thoroughly, I had concluded the > > > > AVP > > > > definitions are correct in RFC 5447, so I did not file an > > > > erratum. > > > > The problem seems to be with those IANA allocations only. Could > > > > somebody review this issue and put the IANA allocations right? > > > > > > In the end, I think that the incorrect IANA allocations were a > > > result > > > of the updates done in RFC 8044. The early drafts had a table > > > which > > > updated all of the IANA data types, e.g.: > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-05#section- > > > 4.2 > > > > Right, we took the entries from here when the document was approved: > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08#section- > > 4.2 > > > > > The MIP6 attributes are listed there as "ipv6prefix" and "string". > > > As > > > the author of RFC 8044, I think that's my mistake. Updating > > > hundreds > > > of attributes required reading many RFCs, and it's understandable > > > that > > > a few mistakes were made. > > > > > > Unless there are objections from DIME or RADEXT, I think it would > > > be > > > best for IANA to update the registry as follows: > > > > > > 125 MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix string [RFC5447] > > > 124 MIP6-Feature-Vector integer64 [RFC5447] > > > > > > We may need approval from the AD (Ben). Explicit consensus from > > > the > > > WG would also be helpful. > > > > > > Alan DeKok. > > > > If there's no errata report required, we can move ahead once the AD > > lets us > > know that any appropriate consensus has been reached (if we haven't > > heard > > from the chairs first) and gives us the go-ahead. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Amanda Baber > > Lead IANA Services Specialist > > > > _______________________________________________ > > radext mailing list > > radext@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les > messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, > deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or > privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have > been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you.
- Re: [radext] [Dime] error in IANA allocations for… Alan DeKok
- [radext] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA allocation… Amanda Baber via RT
- Re: [radext] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA alloca… lionel.morand
- [radext] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA allocation… Amanda Baber via RT
- Re: [radext] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA alloca… Benjamin Kaduk
- [radext] [IANA #1118137] error in IANA allocation… Amanda Baber via RT