IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Proposed charter text based on IETF-115 BoF

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 22 November 2022 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 68376C152701 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:09:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OfMGGjhXfQ-e for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60F55C15258A for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE621800D; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:34:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id shQZN-UryhV5; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:34:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F781800C; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:34:59 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1669149299; bh=80y37ANRS4hM6sryBEKVaW/31BWPj6foigFXxA7nils=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=LduHtzVwNhWn4dEYLvulyykvsH0ogxcdw1ZLeFcGa8BvuvGwKPefMhBE5LhIks6zG fX2bTqeP+ghPJyXmkR8mu1hDifaewW3RI/2MCDvBxqDeDExTAky6tQD3MSBRDIKuNR 4iq3FBOIdVDWccoI61QEi1FWwBTdedrhAvR9dHnMYJnusD2wSLdxXba3IGTBHkB0TO mDO6u92t+95MN4AXXGixbkoDqJYk8w5A7a+wEK8putjAz5Y5FK7GADJ+o5ilj8QMb2 QfiL3TecvjRvzF0etwgl9rDHH7/f7qV+YKEN5K0ERwlHGAoc92m3scT1iA5Q82w6dl fRDMp9CZGUk3w==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23816437; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:09:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
cc: radext@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F377FB99-33AB-4602-AE8D-2C6B80B0B109@deployingradius.com>
References: <CAGL5yWYTzvN1SgL8ordMvenhDGMs-EZw32+U32_4jeR9mqGciQ@mail.gmail.com> <81A072E3-88E2-432F-8672-A068DF41FAB4@deployingradius.com> <8250.1669140392@localhost> <F377FB99-33AB-4602-AE8D-2C6B80B0B109@deployingradius.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:09:22 -0500
Message-ID: <8374.1669147762@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/m5iCJtzsmEnj5EZFEmREo-fU4gI>
Subject: Re: [radext] Proposed charter text based on IETF-115 BoF
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <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: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 20:09:29 -0000

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
    >   That might be possible.  But experience shows that it's difficult to
    > even get shred secrets correct.  Adding yet more dependencies to RADIUS
    > seems difficult.

    >> I think that the major hurdle for using RPK is possibly that we
    >> haven't made operators aware of something clearly and easily copy and
    >> pasted.

    >   OpenSSL doesn't support RFC 7250.  That makes it difficult.

Oh.  Annoying that good security is blocked in this way.

    >>> 2) define (or investigate defining) a "hop by hop" signalling packet.
    >>
    >> Do you mean a hop-by-hop RADIUS packet, or a hop-by-hop DTLS packet?

    >   I mean that there are a few RFCs which "overload" Status-Server to do
    > per-hop signalling.  If there's a wide-spread use for per-hop
    > signalling / negotiation, then we might as well define an explicit
    > per-hop signalling packet.

Ah, I understand now.

    >   RFC 5997 defined Status-Server as either an application-layer "ping",
    > or as an RFC 3539 application-layer watchdog timer.  Other uses-cases
    > are arguably mis-uses.

It seems then like we either need to bless the current uses, or as you say,
replace them.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email