Re: [radext] radius-fragmentation: New flag T field for the Long Extended Type

"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Tue, 04 March 2014 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 499E81A0280 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:36:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2cucUzzLfQPm for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:36:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.pacifier.net (smtp4.pacifier.net [64.255.237.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE37A1A021C for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:36:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Philemon (c-24-17-142-118.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [24.17.142.118]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp4.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 679EE38F5B; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:36:34 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: <lionel.morand@orange.com>, "'Alan DeKok'" <aland@deployingradius.com>, "'Alejandro Perez Mendez'" <alex@um.es>
References: <53107CBB.3020407@um.es> <53134D64.7080304@restena.lu> <53143367.6090001@um.es> <tsl61nvei02.fsf@mit.edu> <5314505E.3010200@deployingradius.com> <531452FC.6090704@um.es> <5314C5FE.3070403@deployingradius.com> <16313_1393946553_5315EFB9_16313_924_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E4DF643@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <16313_1393946553_5315EFB9_16313_924_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E4DF643@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:34:49 -0800
Message-ID: <00c901cf37d0$0b962bf0$22c283d0$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQI6l18P2VVlfJqaXuarwB9cTp47pgHJn+e/AmvLFeABBea3jAFr7drfAQvUsh4C4r+fqQGEg1obmZmeZAA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/sG0n2KWRa5bqpqDaiPJN-_Pt8D4
Cc: 'Sam Hartman' <hartmans@painless-security.com>, radext@ietf.org, 'Stefan Winter' <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
Subject: Re: [radext] radius-fragmentation: New flag T field for the Long Extended Type
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 04 Mar 2014 17:36:43 -0000

This is the reason why the fragmentation draft will have an update
relationship on RFC 6929.   This sys that anybody looking at 6929 needs to
look at this draft to see what was updated.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: radext [mailto:radext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> lionel.morand@orange.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:23 AM
> To: Alan DeKok; Alejandro Perez Mendez
> Cc: Sam Hartman; Stefan Winter; radext@ietf.org
> Subject: [radext] radius-fragmentation: New flag T field for the Long
> Extended Type
> 
> I repeat my comment raised during the meeting.
> 
> RFC6929 (Std) allocates the first bit after the Extended-Type field to the
> (M)ore and the rest (7-bit) is put as reserved.
> But there is nothing about how to allocate the remaining reserved bits.
> 
> This draft allocates the second bit to (T)runcation.
> 
> The question is simple: how do we ensure that another draft will not
allocate
> the same 2nd bit to another feature? It would mean that the same Long-
> extended-type attribute would have two possible interpretations/process...
> 
> Are we only relying on living memories? :) Maybe we don't care because it
is
> an experimental document... or maybe this doc will update the RFC6929 to
> indicate that the 2nd bit is used for "T".
> 
> It is not an issue with the current draft. Just an administrative issue.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Lionel
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> _____
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
exploites
> ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur,
veuillez
> le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes.
Les
> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline
toute
> responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed,
> used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete
> this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext