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

"radext issue tracker" <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org> Tue, 19 August 2014 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DA51A875C for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZtKrX-nzpYd for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A80411A8753 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:53507 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1XJqMS-0008GM-JK; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:50:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: radext issue tracker <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
X-Trac-Project: radext
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:50:32 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/187
Message-ID: <063.ba2b4bddc24d4cb1355d2b261657b2ec@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 187
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, radext@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/mFp917gY0LxNbK6FpMIrJvDKFEM
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Subject: [radext] #187 (dynamic-discovery): Timeouts..
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: radext@ietf.org
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, 19 Aug 2014 20:50:35 -0000

#187: Timeouts..

 As a pert of the document shepherd proto write-up I read the I-D.

 In Section 1.3. it is stated:

    o  much more in-depth guidance on DNS regarding timeouts, failure
 conditions, alteration of TTLs (not considered for Diameter)

 While I agree the I-D is more thorough on DNS related timeouts and failure
 conditions, the above statement is not entirely true. RFC 6733 has timeout
 specific text when it comes to the TTL learned from DNS and the lifetime
 of the discovered server's certificate. This is on the other hand missing
 from this I-D, i.e. the situation where the TTL would exceed certificate
 lifetime. I'd like to see this also addressed in the I-D.

 Reporter:  jouni.nospam@gmail.com  |      Owner:  jouni.nospam@gmail.com
     Type:  defect                  |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                   |  Milestone:
Component:  dynamic-discovery       |    Version:
 Severity:  -                       |   Keywords:

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