IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Adoption call for draft-perez-radext-radius-fragmentation-06

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 03 September 2013 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
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 8ACBF21F9EE5 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 19:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pf6Giz-xXnbz for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 19:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [88.190.25.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DD121F9C83 for <radext@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 19:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C6622400FB; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 04:18:53 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at power.freeradius.org
Received: from power.freeradius.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (power.freeradius.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c09cEkR3Qo09; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 04:18:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Thor-2.local (unknown [70.50.218.116]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2258822400EF; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 04:18:51 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <52254709.5030208@deployingradius.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 22:18:49 -0400
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Deacon <peterd@iea-software.com>
References: <86D0772B-4561-46BD-950D-AF95BED87292@gmail.com> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1308210755460.1748@SMURF> <5224AB2B.7000808@deployingradius.com> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1309020919250.2692@SMURF> <5224F3BE.4070902@deployingradius.com> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1309021811070.2692@SMURF>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1309021811070.2692@SMURF>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [radext] Adoption call for draft-perez-radext-radius-fragmentation-06
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 03 Sep 2013 02:19:02 -0000

Peter Deacon wrote:
> To be clear the issue is not allocation of reserved fields it is M bit
> set where RFC6929 requires it not be.

  OK.

> Which vendors still use 241-246?

  Large ones.  The functionality is disabled by default, but is still in
many products.  I deal with this all of the time.

> Allocation of reserved bits from RFC6929.

  Which suggests the question: how do we ever extend 6929 to use the
reserved bits?

> In this case lack of knowledge is NOT the problem.  The problem is
> proxies KNOWING something is WRONG and being expected to look the other
> way and forward the information on anyway.

  Yes.  That's EXACTLY what proxies should be doing.  Anything else
causes a disaster.

  I explained why I have my opinion, using real-world examples.  Your
counter-argument is to re-state that this is a problem.

  You don't dispute my examples, and you don't offer a counter-argument
to them.  I can only conclude that you're disagreeing because of some
un-named fear.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email