Re: [radext] #187 (dynamic-discovery): Timeouts..

["radext issue tracker" <[e-mail]>]

#187: Timeouts..


Comment (by [e-mail]):

 I have changed the sentence to a relative, not an absolute statement:

 "much more in-depth guidance on DNS regarding timeouts, failure
 conditions, alteration of Time-To-Live (TTL) information than the Diameter
 counterpart"

 which makes the sentence more true than before.

 On the second part, TTL higher than certificate lifetime, this is out of
 scope for this specification: this draft specifies an algorithm on
 extracting connection-relevant data from DNS - and only that. The lifetime
 of a certificate is learned only later, when this list is used to
 establish a RADIUS/TLS connection with a discovered endpoint.

 The place to put a TTL restriction would thus be RFC6614, chapter
 "Connection Setup". Unfortunately, that RFC is silent on this matter :-(

 Since RFC6614 is currently being discussed for re-issue from Experimental
 to Standards track, I suggest to introduce the corresponding change in
 that RFC's "bis".

 Please let me know if that works for you and close the ticket if so.

-- 
------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [e-mail]  |       Owner:  [e-mail]
     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                   |   Milestone:
Component:  dynamic-discovery       |     Version:
 Severity:  -                       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                          |
------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/187#comment:1>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>