IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Fri, 05 April 2013 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.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 1D34221F85DA for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 npURIAtXijgd for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9201721F843E for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-98-216-0-82.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [98.216.0.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF10020219; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:32:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 17DE94497; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:33:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: Peter Deacon <peterd@iea-software.com>
References: <1A5FDF7C-9E93-447E-A103-9700349CB2F5@gmail.com> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1304021450180.3988@SMURF> <515C3604.3040406@deployingradius.com> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1304042021411.3988@SMURF>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:33:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1304042021411.3988@SMURF> (Peter Deacon's message of "Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:24:28 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)")
Message-ID: <tslli8xnoms.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: radext@ietf.org, radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04
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: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:33:18 -0000

I'm confused about the transition issue.
It seems like the draft  is spending a lot of complexity on what's a
very corner case.

As I understand it, the only case where you have to accept both normal
UDP and DTLS responses is the case where you  transition with
outstanding requests.

We're talking about a period of less than a few seconds, right, while
requests are in flight?
So, this issue only comes up in operational environments where a single
NAS or proxy cannot afford  an outage of the maximum lifetime of a
RADIUS request.

Am I missing something?

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status