IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Mon, 28 November 2022 15:27 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 2BD5BC1524AF for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:27:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 99fEV_75kbN4 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (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 300FEC14F73E for <radext@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (135-23-95-173.cpe.pppoe.ca [135.23.95.173]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8CCC257; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:27:01 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA7Lko9wSP0E8tSQwQ4uhud-f+OBZf6Nw-EGf0XqLPkg8vpN8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:27:00 -0500
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6D8C428B-D837-4FFE-9739-99C7C20FF64D@deployingradius.com>
References: <FD0507D4-2C1D-478A-97E0-ECEEF1A5613B@deployingradius.com> <E82B0ECD-4580-4F35-B07B-35685CFC5C44@aiven.io> <883f3572-121f-5ed8-7378-1a91c5525f88@iea-software.com> <EAAC2507-5D29-4453-8881-BC8D9D5314D8@deployingradius.com> <CAOW+2dsKg_H9f3zRUnanCpgGO+G=VPyxzWa9hsrCJCpsnoBsxA@mail.gmail.com> <7CB701B8-BD8F-4ADC-9265-12FC7EBE8FB6@deployingradius.com> <CAOW+2dtDkN3Hvk1vmuyJYGP9KS5WaGDenwQBb7-g12e6SxvEzw@mail.gmail.com> <05f4711f-4f9f-7bb6-e04f-b3c9ebc73202@dfn.de> <9e24bb0f-b12b-8235-3e88-65d4c59f205c@newtoncomputing.co.uk> <e94b8273-6189-efc4-dfa5-3ab3bacbdac6@dfn.de> <7cdb23d1-1d91-71ed-14ee-157315beb278@newtoncomputing.co.uk> <7604703a-075f-7ad6-9c85-24e9a0f845fb@dfn.de> <CAA7Lko9wSP0E8tSQwQ4uhud-f+OBZf6Nw-EGf0XqLPkg8vpN8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Heikki Vatiainen <hvn@radiatorsoftware.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/tadXTVoX28bdsOMpK_thnO0-AHY>
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: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:27:08 -0000

On Nov 28, 2022, at 8:33 AM, Heikki Vatiainen <hvn@radiatorsoftware.com> wrote:
> Would it be a good idea to add ALPN to RFC 6614 (RADIUS over TLS / RadSec) update to create a foundation for SRADIUS and other possible future enhancements? What ALPN provides appears to be a good match for what's needed for RADIUS too. HTTP, for example, seems to have used it with good success.

  I would keep the 6614bis document simple and clear.  Adding ALPN to it would serve no purpose for that document.

> Maybe ideas, such as reverse CoA draft, could benefit from this too. The reverse CoA draft has text about configuration flag and in-band signalling to inform the other end about reverse CoA capability, but careful use of ALPN might be a solution for this too. By careful I mean, for example, not introducing ALPN Protocol IDs for each and every thing.

  ALPN is about negotiating which application protocol is inside of TLS.  The reverse CoA document is just RADIUS.  So it needs negotiation inside of the application layer.

  i.e. a hop-by-hop RADIUS packet (inside of TLS) which says "I have this capability".

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email