RE: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt
Abhishek Tiwari <abhisht@microsoft.com> Wed, 26 November 2008 07:45 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B47883A6B3B for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:45:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zs2CYVmin0bz for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:45:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBA23A6B37 for <radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:45:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>) id 1L5F1f-0002vK-H8 for radiusext-data@psg.com; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:41:31 +0000
Received: from [207.46.52.79] (helo=smtp-sin.microsoft.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <abhisht@microsoft.com>) id 1L5F1X-0002us-Ib for radiusext@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:41:29 +0000
Received: from sin-exhub-c402.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com (157.60.222.32) by SIN-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.168.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:41:17 +0800
Received: from AA-EXMSG-C424.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([157.60.226.28]) by sin-exhub-c402.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com ([157.60.222.32]) with mapi; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:41:17 +0800
From: Abhishek Tiwari <abhisht@microsoft.com>
To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net>
CC: "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:41:15 +0800
Subject: RE: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt
Thread-Topic: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt
Thread-Index: AckSoJZ1a/KplopMRfa5N5aB7a5d3wy4pvJwAAHDgmACWZ7mEAAN2e3AABwdC8A=
Message-ID: <701A6382E4B1B0458FC27DE8F6A477081AD31DAA72@AA-EXMSG-C424.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <859E6E0FDB35410682534B311C3C1A60@xpsuperdvd2> <701A6382E4B1B0458FC27DE8F6A477081A29792913@AA-EXMSG-C424.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> <A02AD68027764107966F6D76A21462DC@NEWTON603> <701A6382E4B1B0458FC27DE8F6A477081A29B7C3FD@AA-EXMSG-C424.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> <002701c94f2f$d5a66980$80f33c80$@net>
In-Reply-To: <002701c94f2f$d5a66980$80f33c80$@net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <radiusext.ops.ietf.org>
Glen Zorn Wrote: <<<< Given that there is no discussion whatsoever of Microsoft SSTP in this document, I can't see how anyone could judge from reading it whether the proposed assignment will "negatively impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or damaging manner" or not. As I mentioned in my original review, the best solution would be to separate the Microsoft proprietary stuff into another document, both documenting SSTP and allocating a Tunnel-Type value for it. The only reference given for SSTP is to a Microsoft marketing Web site. >>>>> 1. The reference is not to a marketing site, but rather to the MS-SSTP documentation within the Windows Communications Protocols (MCPP) specification library, which is part of the Open Specifications Developer Center on MSDN. This is also in line with guidelines provided and approved by EU and DoJ. 2. Previous allocations of Tunnel-Type values have been made for vendor developed protocols, some of which (Bay Dial Virtual Service) are not documented as an Internet draft. -- Abhishek -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:42:16 +0000 From: Abhishek Tiwari <abhisht@microsoft.com> To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net> CC: "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:41:15 +0800 Subject: RE: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt Thread-Topic: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt Thread-Index: AckSoJZ1a/KplopMRfa5N5aB7a5d3wy4pvJwAAHDgmACWZ7mEAAN2e3AABwdC8AMessage-ID: <701A6382E4B1B0458FC27DE8F6A477081AD31DAA72@AA-EXMSG-C424.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Glen Zorn Wrote: <<<< Given that there is no discussion whatsoever of Microsoft SSTP in this document, I can't see how anyone could judge from reading it whether the proposed assignment will "negatively impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or damaging manner" or not. As I mentioned in my original review, the best solution would be to separate the Microsoft proprietary stuff into another document, both documenting SSTP and allocating a Tunnel-Type value for it. The only reference given for SSTP is to a Microsoft marketing Web site. >>>>> 1. The reference is not to a marketing site, but rather to the MS-SSTP documentation within the Windows Communications Protocols (MCPP) specification library, which is part of the Open Specifications Developer Center on MSDN. This is also in line with guidelines provided and approved by EU and DoJ. 2. Previous allocations of Tunnel-Type values have been made for vendor developed protocols, some of which (Bay Dial Virtual Service) are not documented as an Internet draft. -- Abhishek -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:20:00 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: FW: I-D Action:draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-02.txt Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:18:22 -0800 Message-ID: <00d901c94f8e$c9a9f980$5cfdec80$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00DA_01C94F4B.BB86B980" Thread-Index: AclPe3bUkGIoMGBfRgeHM89QWOAvLAAEz6cg Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00DA_01C94F4B.BB86B980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI -----Original Message----- From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 8:00 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-02.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802.16 Privacy Key Management Version 1 (PKMv1) Protocol Support Author(s) : G. Zorn Filename : draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-02.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2008-11-25 This document defines a set of RADIUS Attributes which are designed to provide RADIUS support for IEEE 802.16 Privacy Key Management Version 1. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ------=_NextPart_000_00DA_01C94F4B.BB86B980 Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-02.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-02.txt" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-25195056.I-D@ietf.org> ------=_NextPart_000_00DA_01C94F4B.BB86B980 Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT00203.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00203.txt" _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt ------=_NextPart_000_00DA_01C94F4B.BB86B980-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:26:54 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'David B. Nelson'" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com> Cc: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:25:42 -0800 Message-ID: <007201c94f4c$c1bc1f10$45345d30$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckSoJZ1a/KplopMRfa5N5aB7a5d3wy4pvJwAAHDgmACWZ7mEAAN2e3AAAew8tAAARV2gA= Content-Language: en-us > Glen Zorn writes... > > > The title is so vague as to be meaningless: suggest changing to the > > extremely unwieldy "A RADIUS Tunnel Type for IP Encapsulating > Security > > Payload (ESP) in the Tunnel-mode with IKEv2" or some such thing (see > > below), w/an appropriate abbreviation for the second & following > pages. > > Agreed. > > > The document allocates two tunnel types but briefly discusses only > one of > > them; the other, proprietary to Microsoft Corporation, receives no > > attention whatsoever. > > > This is a > > problem because RFC 2868 states that new Tunnel-Type values are to be > > assigned using the "IETF Consensus" policy (note that RFC 2868 is > > specifically _not_ updated by RFC 3575). RFC 5226 says > > > > IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in > > [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only > through > > RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD- > > Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978]. The > > intention is that the document and proposed assignment > will > > be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or > > experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to > > ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively > > impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF > protocols > > in an inappropriate or damaging manner. > > > > Given that there is no discussion whatsoever of Microsoft SSTP in > this > > document, I can't see how anyone could judge from reading it whether > the > > proposed assignment will "negatively impact interoperability or > otherwise > > extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or damaging manner" or not. > > Well, there is no attempt to standardize SSTP here, just to allow > RADIUS to > provision it. In a standard fashion... > Given that adding a new value of an integer-type > enumerated > value attribute is not likely to have any adverse impact on the RADIUS > protocol, I see no need for extensive discussion there. One can argue > whether SSTP itself is a good or bad thing, but that discussion seems > somewhat orthogonal to the issue at hand. In that case, perhaps all the discussion of IPSec is extraneous, as well? My point is that at least a couple of paragraphs in the draft are devoted to providing justification of the new IPSec tunnel type, but there is no justification given whatsoever for the allocation of the proprietary one. This seems a bit backwards to me; OTOH, if we're just going to sanction allocation for the asking, then why require a document at all? > > > The only reference given for SSTP is to a Microsoft marketing Web > site. > > Well, the MSDN Library is not a marketing site, but rather a technical > reference site. Ever heard of technical marketing? ;-) ... -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:55:44 +0000 From: "David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:54:40 -0500 Organization: Elbrys Networks, Inc. Message-ID: <CAB0AF9DBF0B458C8870EA31BCD4BB51@xpsuperdvd2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckSoJZ1a/KplopMRfa5N5aB7a5d3wy4pvJwAAHDgmACWZ7mEAAN2e3AAAew8tA Glen Zorn writes... > The title is so vague as to be meaningless: suggest changing to the > extremely unwieldy "A RADIUS Tunnel Type for IP Encapsulating Security > Payload (ESP) in the Tunnel-mode with IKEv2" or some such thing (see > below), w/an appropriate abbreviation for the second & following pages. Agreed. > The document allocates two tunnel types but briefly discusses only one of > them; the other, proprietary to Microsoft Corporation, receives no > attention whatsoever. > This is a > problem because RFC 2868 states that new Tunnel-Type values are to be > assigned using the "IETF Consensus" policy (note that RFC 2868 is > specifically _not_ updated by RFC 3575). RFC 5226 says > > IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in > [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through > RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD- > Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978]. The > intention is that the document and proposed assignment will > be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or > experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to > ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively > impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols > in an inappropriate or damaging manner. > > Given that there is no discussion whatsoever of Microsoft SSTP in this > document, I can't see how anyone could judge from reading it whether the > proposed assignment will "negatively impact interoperability or otherwise > extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or damaging manner" or not. Well, there is no attempt to standardize SSTP here, just to allow RADIUS to provision it. Given that adding a new value of an integer-type enumerated value attribute is not likely to have any adverse impact on the RADIUS protocol, I see no need for extensive discussion there. One can argue whether SSTP itself is a good or bad thing, but that discussion seems somewhat orthogonal to the issue at hand. > The only reference given for SSTP is to a Microsoft marketing Web site. Well, the MSDN Library is not a marketing site, but rather a technical reference site. Still, I agree that this is not an absolutely stable reference. In a web search I found that SSTP is the subject of a US Patent Application, (summarized below) so there may at some point be a US Patent that could serve as a stable reference. ;-) Title: Secure Tunnel Over HTTPS Connection Document Type and Number: United States Patent Application 20080077788 Kind Code: A1 Abstract: Many secure tunnels require protocols that require special handling, authorization or security certificates, such as L2TP and PPTP. This often eliminates them for use between a corporate or agency network and outside, public networks. A secure socket tunnel protocol (SSTP) adds drivers in both the kernel and user mode to route standard protocol traffic, such as PPP, over a common HTTPS port. In the event of network interruptions, an exchange of a session cookie allows fast reconnection of the underlying HTTPS connection without affecting higher level applications. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:01:41 +0000 From: "David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RADEXT WG Last Call on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:01:18 -0500 Organization: Elbrys Networks, Inc. Message-ID: <F14C1DB76C764AE7809C8D2D79A81108@xpsuperdvd2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AclO9bgiwZ4guWGbT1uE/smn8TT+5QAOLXOw This is an announcement of RADEXT WG Last Call on the "New Tunnel-Type Values" draft prior to requesting that the IESG publish it as an Informational RFC. This document requires IETF Consensus to assign new value of the RADIUS Tunnel-Type Attribute (an oversight in RFC 3575). The document is available here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt WG Last Call will last until December 15, 2008. Yes, it's a busy time of year, but this is a *very* short and simple draft. Please review the document and post your comments to the RADEXT WG mailing list (radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format described on the RADEXT WG Issues list (http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/). If you have read the document and approve of its publication, but have no comments, please also post this to the list. Regards, Dave -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:00:17 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Abhishek Tiwari'" <abhisht@microsoft.com> Cc: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:58:39 -0800 Message-ID: <002701c94f2f$d5a66980$80f33c80$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckSoJZ1a/KplopMRfa5N5aB7a5d3wy4pvJwAAHDgmACWZ7mEAAN2e3A Content-Language: en-us I was the first to comment on this draft, the day it came out; apparently, however, my comments were lost in the flurry of positive comments from unrecognized (by me) people with Yahoo! email addresses (I suppose that MSN would have been too obvious ;-) so I'll try again. The title is so vague as to be meaningless: suggest changing to the extremely unwieldy "A RADIUS Tunnel Type for IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) in the Tunnel-mode with IKEv2" or some such thing (see below), w/an appropriate abbreviation for the second & following pages. The document allocates two tunnel types but briefly discusses only one of them; the other, proprietary to Microsoft Corporation, receives no attention whatsoever. Were we not supposed to notice that it was there? This is a problem because RFC 2868 states that new Tunnel-Type values are to be assigned using the "IETF Consensus" policy (note that RFC 2868 is specifically _not_ updated by RFC 3575). RFC 5226 says IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD- Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978]. The intention is that the document and proposed assignment will be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or damaging manner. Given that there is no discussion whatsoever of Microsoft SSTP in this document, I can't see how anyone could judge from reading it whether the proposed assignment will "negatively impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or damaging manner" or not. As I mentioned in my original review, the best solution would be to separate the Microsoft proprietary stuff into another document, both documenting SSTP and allocating a Tunnel-Type value for it. The only reference given for SSTP is to a Microsoft marketing Web site. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:47:42 +0000 Message-ID: <492C0FE1.7000704@deployingradius.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:46:57 +0100 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com> CC: 'radext mailing list' <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Updates to the guidelines document. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David B. Nelson wrote: > The "change token" for the guidelines draft is now with the Document > Shepherd and the IESG. That's what happens when the WG submits a > document to the IESG for publication -- it gives up the right to keep > changing the document. :-) You could raise a "late" IETF Last Call > issue... OK. Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:33:35 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 for WGLC Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:33:02 +0100 Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401182A4A@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 for WGLC Thread-Index: AclObjQBwOL/R/NwSsCqAxxPvZa2ZwAi4jQg From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> To: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Cc: <ops-dir@ietf.org> > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joseph > Salowey (jsalowey) > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 9:53 PM > To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 for WGLC > > Here are some working group last call comments on RADSEC: > > 1. How is backward compatibility/forward migration of RADSEC handled? > Operational recommendations in this area should be discussed. The > potential for rollback attacks should also be covered in the > security considerations section. > I very much agree with this comment. You would have received it as an AD or OPS-DIR comment if Joe did not raise it. Dan -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:03:21 +0000 From: "David B. Nelson" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "'Abhishek Tiwari'" <abhisht@microsoft.com> Subject: RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:02:59 -0500 Message-ID: <85E9A0BD11094D418ACD921555E36A46@NEWTON603> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckSoJZ1a/KplopMRfa5N5aB7a5d3wy4pvJwAAHDgmACWZ7mEAABJESw > I have submitted the draft "draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt" to I-D > archive for RADEXT WG last call. OK, thanks. We'll start WGLC once the I-D is announced. This was discussed briefly at IETF-73 and no one in the room had any objection to an immediate WGLC on this draft. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:00:47 +0000 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081125120001.576383A6A37@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:00:01 -0800 (PST) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the RADIUS EXTensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : New Tunnel-Type Values Author(s) : A. Tiwari Filename : draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2008-11-25 This document defines a set of values for the Tunnel-Type RADIUS Attribute. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-25035733.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:30:56 +0000 From: Abhishek Tiwari <abhisht@microsoft.com> To: "David B. Nelson" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>, "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:30:18 +0800 Subject: RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt Thread-Topic: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt Thread-Index: AckSoJZ1a/KplopMRfa5N5aB7a5d3wy4pvJwAAHDgmACWZ7mEA= Message-ID: <701A6382E4B1B0458FC27DE8F6A477081A29B7C3FD@AA-EXMSG-C424.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 I have submitted the draft "draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt" to I-D archive for RADEXT WG last call. Thanks, Abhishek -----Original Message----- From: David B. Nelson [mailto:d.b.nelson@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 5:56 PM To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Cc: Abhishek Tiwari Subject: RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt > "The comment period will last until October 5, 2008." > > Any progress? There have been a number of positive comments to the list with regard to accepting this draft as a WG work item, and no negative comments. Consider it accepted. The window for draft submission will open up again on the Monday of IETF 73 week. Given the simple nature of the draft, we can immediately start a WG Last Call, perhaps immediately after ITEF 73. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:48:18 +0000 Message-ID: <492BD7B1.7020404@deployingradius.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:47:13 +0100 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Weber <gdweber@gmail.com> CC: radext mailing list <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Question on Status-Server document and CoA port Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greg Weber wrote: > I would suggest to remove this text unless you want to pursue it > on the Experimental track. Fine by me. > At least, I would think any watchdog > traffic should be on the same port/addr path as the signaling traffic > that it's trying to protect, in order to avoid firewall changes in the POP. What does that mean? CoA packets *are* signaling traffic. If normal CoA packets can get from the RADIUS server to the NAS, then this (ab)use of Status-Server should work, too. > You are trying to see if the NAS can initiate authentication/accounting, > right, not if the DAS is operating? No. The idea was to (1) signal to the NAS that the RADIUS server was alive, and (2) see if the NAS (or dynamic authorization server) was operating. > It just seems like you are trying > to recreate the Status-Client behavior by using Status-Server on the > CoA port. Quite possibly. Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:23:20 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=VoOaKJPE7B66a8KrzkVNVBUOw37u0yOFXGOXNhkDQlI=; b=Bu2/w9vTpWKdIaGY/cJmIRhAf/eo1eOK/lsWDbGyLA1RvAKaRbD8PZ3WrKbHkaEfUI PMOPvt3xZx8Gp4t/atNuIU0SC4Pqn7bnJmfSTasOyAxzLbBBf8ZwZyWtoqumVMS+1rhk 27zROa0jKBMNLDOk3r2jry1vzMiv0N1Meht4UDomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=LM4xhidvbn5IKZWH+gSj54MHOxtXC1Do/+T6oibj4X7fXNI3FHbwTyKrlm5NxZg/0u 63yVPGRuiU1jHx+eeWkCC+iIYX+AYBk/7U64L05Sl6unk43tSSqD5DCPl9GaHTKC0N6c QjLMFaWvXi1487PG5JHWZ7Xwp//SqFRz/7TEQMessage-ID: <d11ef1350811241922o244e644ate0a841813d12ca88@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:22:16 -0500 From: "Greg Weber" <gdweber@gmail.com> To: "Alan DeKok" <aland@deployingradius.com> Subject: Re: Question on Status-Server document and CoA port Cc: "radext mailing list" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote: > One issue with the current draft was brought up in the WG meeting > yesterday. The draft proposes that when RADIUS servers start, they send > Status-Server packets to any NASes that have a CoA port defined. This > procedure can be used by the NAS to determine that the server is up, > potentially increasing network stability. > > This behavior, however, is not part of the traditional implementations > of Status-Server. It was suggested at the least IETF by Glen, and added > to the document after that. > > If the server has many NASes configured, it may send tens, or possibly > hundreds of packets on startup. It would seem reasonable to add a > suggestion to use jitter, though the current draft doesn't suggest that. > > Should the document be updated to suggest jitter, or should the text > relating to CoA be deleted entirely? I would suggest to remove this text unless you want to pursue it on the Experimental track. At least, I would think any watchdog traffic should be on the same port/addr path as the signaling traffic that it's trying to protect, in order to avoid firewall changes in the POP. You are trying to see if the NAS can initiate authentication/accounting, right, not if the DAS is operating? It just seems like you are trying to recreate the Status-Client behavior by using Status-Server on the CoA port. Greg > > Alan DeKok. > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> > -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:53:47 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 for WGLC Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:52:38 -0800 Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE506F645A0@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 for WGLC Thread-Index: AclObjQBwOL/R/NwSsCqAxxPvZa2Zw= From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l43; t27556360; x28420360; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@ci sco.com> |Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 f or WGLC |Sender: ; bh=U5bPRMCgfSvL2n9rol56vnG9uLxeEgsc5/R3oHUohAg=; b=GtKqy081B43XAdA11NJp8XnjRCGIctOZon4wRibDP/y7DgE+6KmncLmHyN O7+P7ewylVGlJGzbftk3+xU5+wPhhK3FGGgqLCPIQKgEnfXcOKU1Io4AEHxX xQuykIIqh/; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Here are some working group last call comments on RADSEC: 1. How is backward compatibility/forward migration of RADSEC handled? Operational recommendations in this area should be discussed. The potential for rollback attacks should also be covered in the security considerations section. 2. I think the certificate handling and authorization section needs to be more specific for supporting mandatory to implement options. Currently, the document implicitly requires trust root based authorization where all certs issued by a given trust root are authorized. Some more specific rules are discussed in an informative section. I believe some of this needs to be normative and more specific in order to have interoperable implementations. This should also be discussed in the security considerations. 3. I'm not sure I understand the choice of ciphersuites. Why is TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA recommended? It seems that it would be much preferable to use AES or 3DES? 4. The document should state that the fixed string "radsec" shared secret MUST NOT be used when TLS is not available. 5. The terms "dynamic peer resolution" and "dynamic peer discovery" are used in the document and not clearly defined. 6. Would RADSEC benefit from a mechanism that did not require a PKI? This could be achieved by specifying a certificate fingerprint or PSK mode of operation. Cheers, Joe -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:24:06 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=7/HA5QufYv+ftPwU5afDvN5LTfSCjMfSMZCKMqZzmEo=; b=TrLG++m6Z2E78rDDbKUNNTIs24R6DDujdrI4iaARuZdUn6Y85rxFTjg7NS8ZlZjQ22 2tzAzj4vosUUMyJmma9gbGc18rNRUmlVGFKFWaeNa0NHscWvZwYadr3lkSkdihdBcPub 39DMjYllSBZdc4yLT2fJUdBgMT3z0LYPg2oW4DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=JTSg6O/PRKpe4ps/TSEaUAQ3c5v7myHZEd20AriA4qgGLXc1ce7VU7NZ223DDLWHVx +99xBl8vlUJOetuw1fcZzMZOCYxXNSQL76EhuWBk2mCfo3giRP6OpmZZkgsN5HoxLuv7 jLtJlPi2IWiXZz+1xDBgfAD52oRkmKy3o3A+gMessage-ID: <d11ef1350811240823q23fe9cbdlc6fd499594f539e7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:23:15 -0500 From: "Greg Weber" <gdweber@gmail.com> To: "radext mailing list" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: [ISSUE] Status-Server MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Status-Server comments Submitter name: Greg Weber Submitter email address: gdweber@gmail.com Date first submitted: November 24, 2008 Reference: n/a Document: draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02.txt Comment type: 'E'ditorial Priority: '1' Should fix Section: various Here are some editorial comments on the Status-Server doc currently in WG last call. * idnits says the boilerplate needs to be updated. * In section 3, I see: "Status-Server packets MAY include NAS-Identifier, one of NAS-IP-Address or NAS-IPv6-Address, and Reply-Message." This conflicts with the Table of Attributes in section 6 which indicates that Reply-Message cannot be included in Status-Server packets. * Reply-Message can be included in Access-Accept, but not Acct-Response? That means the Verbose Query and Response example in section 7.3 works only for authentication servers and not accounting servers. That seems like a discontinuity. * The Table of Attributes in section 6 indicates that Calling-Station-Id may be included Status-Server and Access-Accept packets. This conflicts with RFC 2865 which disallows that attribute in Access-Accept. And, how would this attribute be populated in Status-Server packets where there is no associated calling station? * I would suggest removing all of section 5. These topics seem related, but not germane to the purpose and scope of this doc. * In section 4.1, I see "Robust implementations SHOULD accept any Response packet as a valid response to a Status-Server packet..." That seems to be a pretty fundamental change to the RADIUS request/response model. I would suggest removing that paragraph or changing it to a MAY. Small changes by section: ToC: Fix indent & missing title on 2.3.2 Section 3: "MUST NOTE" -> "MUST NOT" Section 3.1: "is an CoA-ACK packet" -> "is a CoA-ACK packet." Section 4.3: "to start packets to start" -> "to start" Section 4.4: "may sent" -> "may be sent" Section 4.6: "along along" -> "along" Section 4.6: "impement" -> "implement" Section 5.1: "has internal RADIUS server that proxy" -> "has an internal RADIUS server that proxies" Section 6: "table provide a guide" -> "table provides a guide" Small global changes: "it's" -> "its" (6 times) "wide-spread" -> "widespread" (2 times) "inter-operable" -> "interoperable" (1 time) "use-case" -> "use case" (3 times) "pro-actively" -> "proactively" (1 time) "re-use" -> "reuse" (3 times) "coa" -> "CoA" (2 times) "16-octet" -> "16 octet" (3 times) -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:43:26 +0000 Message-ID: <492A9341.4050704@elbrysnetworks.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:42:57 -0500 From: "David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> CC: 'radext mailing list' <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Updates to the guidelines document. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alan DeKok wrote: > As noted at IETF 73, we should likely update the guidelines document > to include a note on the Called-Station-Id attribute. RFC 3580 defines > it to contain two independent fields: MAC and SSID. As this is a > complex type not used for security or authentication, it should be > listed in Appendix B. > > Suggested text is below. If there are no objections, it can go into > the next revision of the document. > > Alan DeKok. The "change token" for the guidelines draft is now with the Document Shepherd and the IESG. That's what happens when the WG submits a document to the IESG for publication -- it gives up the right to keep changing the document. :-) You could raise a "late" IETF Last Call issue... -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:25:23 +0000 Message-ID: <492A8EDE.8010909@deployingradius.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:24:14 +0100 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 'radext mailing list' <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Updates to the guidelines document. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As noted at IETF 73, we should likely update the guidelines document to include a note on the Called-Station-Id attribute. RFC 3580 defines it to contain two independent fields: MAC and SSID. As this is a complex type not used for security or authentication, it should be listed in Appendix B. Suggested text is below. If there are no objections, it can go into the next revision of the document. Alan DeKok. --- B.8. Called-Station-Id [RFC3580] Section 3.20 defines a format for the Called-Station-Id Attribute which can be sent by a RADIUS client: For IEEE 802.1X Authenticators, this attribute is used to store the bridge or Access Point MAC address in ASCII format (upper case only), with octet values separated by a "-". Example: "00-10-A4-23-19-C0". In IEEE 802.11, where the SSID is known, it SHOULD be appended to the Access Point MAC address, separated from the MAC address with a ":". Example "00-10-A4-23-19-C0:AP1". The sub-fields encoded in this attribute are independent, and do not carry security or authentication data. This use of a complex text type is therefore NOT RECOMMENDED. Future specifications SHOULD NOT use similar methods to pack multiple fields of type text into one text attribute. This specification should have instead defined a new attribute to contain the SSID. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:30:01 +0000 Message-ID: <492984C0.4010605@deployingradius.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:28:48 +0100 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Weber <gdweber@gmail.com> CC: radext mailing list <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Question on Status-Server document and CoA port Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greg Weber wrote: > I am confused about how this WG item is being pursued. > The WG charter milestone says the document will be > submitted as a Proposed Standard, but it has been submitted > as Informational (non-standards track). That's likely a typo left over from it originating as an individual submission. > Can someone clarify whether the purpose is to: > 1) Document the original TAOS & CVX implementations from 9-10 yrs back > as Informational. Document, yes. > 2) Add a bunch of new stuff (CoA) which should probably make this Experimental. This was discussed in Dublin && in Minneapolis. The suggestion in Dublin was to add CoA. The suggestion in Minneapolis was to remove it. I've asked that the WG respond on this issue. If there's WG consensus to remove it, it's gone. Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 03:27:00 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh:W0lt1EUYMJBsxZvHIG+FXFqAOCIsdb28NeMHsU1Fo=; b=DO0pBz1KkvuZHsKPnHHJXlPx4JvwHBRH/Fj/6cmnhZdbQOjGNk9Che+NzvLyRCAJgp j1MTub8cMtP1jLhuEhDB0O0cJWOuM22BE5E4VdqoHNdiZ2OvUAUqtrOYmDvx6pNvhqe8 f1TFfD/kfUrpqVoXlerbawU8V7g41d9K83SiEDomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=gkvHoZvp0wNind8k/fA69eFdVMM95b9nTXA02JjnlCYPlE6R8fgdcJBVf9KIQjL/1C WmTNZaEl8+GPu881JtAO+9/qH77nR1DZGsxVqEIp968rjdUgUAzWjhnNuOMHDYWtnLAE yAcmVE9H+3zk6/dHpKf5YxIsyzONzOiE5Xt/4Message-ID: <d11ef1350811201925l7dcf9e96p734f0ca92dc3ed9c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:25:54 -0500 From: "Greg Weber" <gdweber@gmail.com> To: "Alan DeKok" <aland@deployingradius.com> Subject: Re: Question on Status-Server document and CoA port Cc: "radext mailing list" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I am confused about how this WG item is being pursued. The WG charter milestone says the document will be submitted as a Proposed Standard, but it has been submitted as Informational (non-standards track). Can someone clarify whether the purpose is to: 1) Document the original TAOS & CVX implementations from 9-10 yrs back as Informational. 2) Add a bunch of new stuff (CoA) which should probably make this Experimental. 3) Develop something on the standards track complete with WG consensus. 4) Something else?? Sorry if this was covered in the WG mtg this week -did not attend. [I'd pick 1) above.] Greg On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote: > One issue with the current draft was brought up in the WG meeting > yesterday. The draft proposes that when RADIUS servers start, they send > Status-Server packets to any NASes that have a CoA port defined. This > procedure can be used by the NAS to determine that the server is up, > potentially increasing network stability. > > This behavior, however, is not part of the traditional implementations > of Status-Server. It was suggested at the least IETF by Glen, and added > to the document after that. > > If the server has many NASes configured, it may send tens, or possibly > hundreds of packets on startup. It would seem reasonable to add a > suggestion to use jitter, though the current draft doesn't suggest that. > > Should the document be updated to suggest jitter, or should the text > relating to CoA be deleted entirely? > > Alan DeKok. > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> > -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:48:55 +0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=br7tt26TXa+sLjYvUBNSkJLimVw0FnpZKwxY4XapnMPtV7zxTDCZFqZaVtx4SZA96lDntCRUsaxeYJ25lXq6aQxtWEViGpHoDUynN4KKocszD8TsPgjrU3nGU/lshjlGErs6rT571qpbT0fLtNh8/pqykvOAhlbimU7HnRbqTjk=; Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:48:18 -0800 (PST) From: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org> Subject: Service issues in prefix authorization To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1422431512-1227124098=:95491" Message-ID: <390600.95491.qm@web111409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --0-1422431512-1227124098=:95491 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all, Bernard asked me to start some discussion on the list regarding what types of services to be used after transporting the prefixes to the Radius Client to assure that the prefixes reach the end user. Regards, Behcet --0-1422431512-1227124098=:95491 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:14pt"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 14pt;">Hi all,<br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 14pt;"><div> Bernard asked me to start some discussion on the list regarding what types of services to be used after transporting the prefixes to the Radius Client to assure that the prefixes reach the end user.<br> Regards,<br><br>Behcet<br> <br></div></div><br> </div></div></div><br> </body></html> --0-1422431512-1227124098=:95491-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:33:03 +0000 Message-ID: <49245BCB.9020800@deployingradius.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:32:43 -0600 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 'radext mailing list' <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: TCP transport draft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The WG meeting yesterday raised a number of potential issues with the draft. 1) The document doesn't discuss UDP -> TCP and TCP -> UDP issues when proxying packets. This needs to be updated. There are also head-of-line blocking issues when there are sudden spikes of traffic. 2) The document needs more review from the transport area for TCP issues. 3) TCP && RadSec. Q: Does the WG want to *forbid* "raw" TCP transport? i.e. TCP MUST be used with RadSec. TCP MUST NOT be used to transport bare RADIUS. 4) Use of Status-Server as the RFC3539 watchdog timer packet. The issues surrounding Status-Server means that 1 RADIUS ID will have to be dedicated to Status-Server. This means that there can only be 255 packets "in flight" on one TCP connection. Q: Does the WG want to stay with Status-Server, or define a new packet code? Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:27:51 +0000 Message-ID: <49245A80.9000607@deployingradius.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:27:12 -0600 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 'radext mailing list' <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Question on Status-Server document and CoA port Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One issue with the current draft was brought up in the WG meeting yesterday. The draft proposes that when RADIUS servers start, they send Status-Server packets to any NASes that have a CoA port defined. This procedure can be used by the NAS to determine that the server is up, potentially increasing network stability. This behavior, however, is not part of the traditional implementations of Status-Server. It was suggested at the least IETF by Glen, and added to the document after that. If the server has many NASes configured, it may send tens, or possibly hundreds of packets on startup. It would seem reasonable to add a suggestion to use jitter, though the current draft doesn't suggest that. Should the document be updated to suggest jitter, or should the text relating to CoA be deleted entirely? Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:22:34 +0000 From: "David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-01.txt Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:22:11 -0500 Organization: Elbrys Networks, Inc. Message-ID: <6BB535653AE44FCF8711B4201CC5E99A@xpsuperdvd2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-index: AclKatGV99UumzDpRU+jy7ywcVTxDgAACEUg I believe that the -01 version of the RADIUS Crypto-Agility Requirements draft addresses all the open WGLC issues, as we discussed in yesterday's RADEXT WG meeting here at IETF-73. Please take a moment to review the changes. Those who have open issues are especially requested to acknowledge whether they can be closed. Regards, Dave -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:16:08 +0000 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-01.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081119171501.3427A3A6AB0@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:15:01 -0800 (PST) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the RADIUS EXTensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Crypto-Agility Requirements for Remote Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Author(s) : D. Nelson Filename : draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-01.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2008-11-19 This memo describes the requirements for a crypto-agility solution for Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-19091030.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:29:39 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W26904BB23EE452D6DD845893120@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_4814e199-34f4-4980-aeea-e588a2a001e0_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: FW: IEEE 802.16 Review Request Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:28:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_4814e199-34f4-4980-aeea-e588a2a001e0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable CC: dromasca@avaya.com; dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com; d.j.johnston@intel.com; paul.nikolich@ATT.NETFrom: r.b.marks@ieee.orgTo: bernard_aboba@hotmail.comSubject: Re: IEEE 802.16 Review RequestDate: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:43:39 -0700 Dear Bernard, Thanks for calling our attention to this issue. The IEEE 802.16 Working Group has developed the following response: <http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-08_069r1.pdf>. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the review. Regards, Roger Dr. Roger B. Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access <http://WirelessMAN.org> On 2008/10/30, at 02:25 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: Recently, the IETF RADEXT WG has received a request to accept the document "RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802.16 Privacy Key Management Version 1" as a working group work item. The specification is available here:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-01.txt Since this document relates to IEEE 802.16, we would like to inquire as to whether IEEE 802.16 has an opinion on the advisability of having IETF take on this work, as well as to whether IEEE 802.16 has any editorial or technical feedback relating to the document. This document is likely to be discussed during IETF 73 in Minneapolis, which will take place from November 16-21, 2008. --_4814e199-34f4-4980-aeea-e588a2a001e0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt; font-family:Verdana } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> <BR> <HR id=stopSpelling> CC: dromasca@avaya.com; dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com; d.j.johnston@intel.com; paul.nikolich@ATT.NET<BR>From: r.b.marks@ieee.org<BR>To: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com<BR>Subject: Re: IEEE 802.16 Review Request<BR>Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:43:39 -0700<BR><BR> <DIV>Dear Bernard,</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>Thanks for calling our attention to this issue.</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>The IEEE 802.16 Working Group has developed the following response:</DIV> <DIV> <<A href="http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-08_069r1.pdf">http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/L80216-08_069r1.pdf</A>>.</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>We appreciate the opportunity to provide the review.</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>Regards,</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>Roger</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=EC_Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate"> <DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"> <DIV>Dr. Roger B. Marks <<A href="mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org">r.b.marks@ieee.org</A>></DIV> <DIV>Chair, IEEE 802.16 Working Group on Broadband Wireless Access <<A href="http://wirelessman.org/">http://WirelessMAN.org</A>></DIV> <DIV><BR class=EC_khtml-block-placeholder></DIV><BR class=EC_Apple-interchange-newline></DIV></SPAN></DIV><BR> <DIV> <DIV>On 2008/10/30, at 02:25 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:</DIV><BR class=EC_Apple-interchange-newline> <BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN class=EC_Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 14px Arial; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate"> <DIV class=EC_hmmessage style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">Recently, the IETF RADEXT WG has received a request to accept the document "RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802.16 Privacy Key Management Version 1" as a working group work item. The specification is available here:<BR><A href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-01.txt">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-01.txt</A><BR> <BR>Since this document relates to IEEE 802.16, we would like to inquire as to whether IEEE 802.16 has an opinion on the advisability of having IETF take on this work, as well as to whether IEEE 802.16 has any editorial or technical feedback relating to the document. This document is likely to be discussed during IETF 73 in Minneapolis, which will take place from November 16-21, 2008.<SPAN class=EC_Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR> <BR></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></body> </html> --_4814e199-34f4-4980-aeea-e588a2a001e0_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:13:31 +0000 Message-ID: <4921980E.1010503@deployingradius.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:13:02 -0600 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net> CC: 'Bernard Aboba' <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, 'radext mailing list' <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Status of Issue 225 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Glen Zorn wrote: > I'm not really interested in taking a walk on the psychic side just now, so > how about I just pretend that you are expressing your (necessarily biased) > opinion based upon your (necessarily limited) experience, just like > everybody else? If it makes you happy. > But you didn't _say_ that; Yes, well, I am known to make mistakes from time to time. Please accept my apologies. > Amazingly enough, you're not the only person in the world to have talked > with (or been) a RADIUS developer; _my_ personal experience (which I suppose > must be less valid than the royal form that you seem to possess) suggests > that the vast majority of developers are highly intelligent & when questions > about standards arise they are about far more subtle things than this. It pleases me to no end that your experience has been more positive than mine has been. Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:06:17 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Alan DeKok'" <aland@deployingradius.com> Cc: "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "'radext mailing list'" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: Status of Issue 225 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:05:00 -0600 Message-ID: <00c601c948ce$45855a80$d0900f80$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AclGKKW8HFQ4azBhS3y1PUTuzTOS+gCohOVw Content-Language: en-us Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@deployingradius.com] writes: > Glen Zorn wrote: > > >> It is not *ridiculously* clear from the current document that > >> "Length" > >> and "Extended-Length" are strongly related. > > > > Maybe not to you... > > Pretend I'm channeling the 100's of people who've read the specs, and > implemented broken NASes. I'm not really interested in taking a walk on the psychic side just now, so how about I just pretend that you are expressing your (necessarily biased) opinion based upon your (necessarily limited) experience, just like everybody else? > > > This would disallow the presence of multiple AVPs in a single > attribute. > > Are you claiming "WG Consensus" for this massive change? > > No. If there *is* only one AVP in a single attribute, then that > relationship holds. But you didn't _say_ that; similarly, your suggestion that " attributes generated by a client or server MUST NOT be fragmented at boundaries other than 246 octets" says that values the length of which is not evenly divisible by 246 are illegal. I suspect that you actually _meant_ that all but the final fragment must be 246 octets in length but again, that's not what you _said_. I suppose that it's possible that you spent hours designing these "solutions" but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume that it's more like 10 seconds. Maybe you could take a little bit more care in crafting your suggestions because as it is you are not offering solutions so much as you are creating bugs for others to find and fix. > > >> Experience shows that without this text, people will create > >> attributes > >> that don't satisfy this criteria... and claim they're standards > >> compliant. > > > > This comment is fascinating. What, exactly, is the "experience" you > are > > talking about? Are there already multiple implementations of the > extended > > attributes? Have you perfected time travel? > > I am, of course, not claiming experience with multiple > implementations > of the extended attributes. Pretending I'm making that claim is > disingenuous at best. Instead, I'm claiming something much more > difficult to understand. > > The "experience" is with previous standards, and the people who've > implemented RADIUS software based on them. It's called "learning from > experience", and "applying that experience to new situations". > > I've spent a lot of time talking with implementors of NASes and > servers about their software. There are a number of styles of > misunderstanding that they have about existing specifications. That > experience can be used to review new standards, to minimize the > potential for similar problems. Amazingly enough, you're not the only person in the world to have talked with (or been) a RADIUS developer; _my_ personal experience (which I suppose must be less valid than the royal form that you seem to possess) suggests that the vast majority of developers are highly intelligent & when questions about standards arise they are about far more subtle things than this. ... -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:51:55 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C94891.96E97132" Subject: RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:49:24 +0100 Message-ID: <A05118C6DF9320488C77F3D5459B17B7089821AC@xmb-ams-333.emea.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" Thread-Index: AclHcQpJZ8lpbP2ATnyx5vVlfqe8qQBH7YOA From: "Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@cisco.com> To: "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Cc: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l289; t26911850; x27775850; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=blourdel@cisco.com; z=From: "Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@ cisco.com> |Subject: RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on = 22IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" |Sender: ; bh=+m+ZJhHZnfSaXvRYJnFopjEITK4426T617nS5mggnzo=; b=rSKMxdtMjtlfDWG2UWbL3W+U5K/tgMuzjPbeFAthZ3Jm3ZruEKDIWiE3aN GGPnd67JGTnMjiLc6qBCJ8SE2qr4t9NUuLUJy5Bm/qEf5fubiQmGqq9cSFEk 6AlGhBwhGX; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=blourdel@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C94891.96E97132 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bernard, RFC 5080 Section 2.11 comment about Framed-IPv6-Prefix is a fair point that would require more thought in revising RFC3162. I have no problem going the "separate document" route and re-publish a revision including additional attributes only as I did in my first revision of the document. Let me add that in the presentation for Tuesday WG meeting. regards Benoit ________________________________ From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:25 PM To: Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel); Ralph Droms (rdroms); radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" I'd suggest that the issue of whether the document should revise RFC 3162 is somewhat separate from whether it only relates to DHCPv6 or not. As Ralph points out, revising RFC 3162 involves considerably more work. For example, it would be necessary to address the issues brought up in RFC 5080 Section 2.11. Also, there are existing deployments of RFC 3162, so backward compatibility issues need to be taken into account. So if your desire is to get this work done quickly, an RFC 3162 revision is best avoided unless it's nessary. In your original submission (draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00) there was a normative reference to RFC 3162, contained in the following paragraph: This attributes offers an entire IPv6 address to the DHCPv6 Server in contrast to Interface-id [RFC3162] that offers only 64 bits. Even concatenated with Framed-IPv6 prefix [RFC3162] to make a 128 bit IPv6 address, this does not address scenarios where there is a need to offer multiple addresses or off-link IPv6 addresses that are not part of the prefix stored in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute. Storing the IPv6 address in the subscriber RADIUS profile is particularly useful as the Service Provider will know in advance the customers uplink IPv6 address, hence facilitating management or security policy implementation. Based on this, it would appear that the major issue relating to RFC 3162 is the potential usage of Framed-IPv6-Prefix to assign an entire IPv6 address (e.g. use of a /128 prefix). RFC 5080 already addresses this to some extent in Section 2.11: The description of the Prefix-Length field in RFC 3162 indicates excessively wide latitude: The length of the prefix, in bits. At least 0 and no larger than 128. This length appears too broad, because it is not clear what a NAS should do with a prefix of greater granularity than /64. For example, the Framed-IPv6-Prefix may contain a /128. This does not imply that the NAS should assign an IPv6 address to the end user, because RFC 3162 already defines a Framed-IPv6-Identifier attribute to handle the Identifier portion. It appears that the Framed-IPv6-Prefix is used for the link between the NAS and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) only if a /64 prefix is assigned. When a /64 or larger prefix is sent, the intent is for the NAS to send a routing advertisement containing the information present in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute. In essence, RFC 5080 states that Framed-IPv6-Prefix is not to be used for IPv6 address assignment, which is the point you make in your document. Given this, it would appear to me that your original submission does not have a normative dependency on an RFC 3162 revision. Of course, if you're willing to sign up for the extra work required to complete such a revision, your efforts would be appreciated. i'm EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD Join me <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood> > Subject: RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:41:11 +0100 > From: blourdel@cisco.com > To: rdroms@cisco.com; radiusext@ops.ietf.org > CC: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com > > Ralph, > > The problem I have with this approach is that giving more though to it, > I thing that > > IPv6-DNS attribute could be used in the RFC5006 context. So it is not > DHCP use only. > > IPv6-address could be used in a SLAC context for validation of the > advertised address by the gateway. > > So it turns that none of the attributes are DHCP specific. > > Regards > > Benoit > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:15 AM > To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Bernard Aboba; Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel) > Subject: Re: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP > Networks" > > I support accepting "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a RADEXT WG > work item. There is a need for these attributes to support certain > IPv6 deployment models. > > I support handling "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a separate > work item. I am concerned that bundling the attributes into a revision > of RFC 3162 would incur too much delay. > > - Ralph > > On Oct 28, 2008, at Oct 28, 2008,2:00 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > > At IETF 72, the RADEXT WG was polled on the following questions: > > > > 1) whether to accept "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" > > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp- > > 00.txt > > ) > > as a RADEXT WG work item; > > > > 2) whether to handle this as a standalone work item or bundle it into > > a revision of RFC 3162 (RFC 3162bis). > > > > This is a RADEXT WG consensus call, in order to confirm the "sense of > > the room" at IETF 72 with respect to these two items. > > > > The RADEXT WG Consensus call will last until November 12, 2008. > > Please send your > > opinions on these two questions to the RADEXT WG mailing list > > (radiusext@ops.ietf.org ). > > > > > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C94891.96E97132 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <STYLE>.hmmessage P { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px } BODY.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana } </STYLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY class=hmmessage> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN class=083524408-17112008>Bernard,</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN class=083524408-17112008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN class=083524408-17112008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>RFC 5080 Section 2.11 <SPAN class=083524408-17112008>comment about Framed-IPv6-Prefix is a fair point that would require more thought </SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=083524408-17112008> in revising RFC3162.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=083524408-17112008></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=083524408-17112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>I have no problem going the "separate document" route and re-publish a revision including additional attributes only as I did in my first revision of the document.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=083524408-17112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=083524408-17112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Let me add that in the presentation for Tuesday WG meeting.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=083524408-17112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=083524408-17112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>regards</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=083524408-17112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=083524408-17112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Benoit</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT><SPAN class=083524408-17112008></SPAN><BR> </DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left> <HR tabIndex=-1> <FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:25 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel); Ralph Droms (rdroms); radiusext@ops.ietf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks"<BR></FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV></DIV>I'd suggest that the issue of whether the document should revise RFC 3162 is somewhat<BR>separate from whether it only relates to DHCPv6 or not. <BR><BR>As Ralph points out, revising RFC 3162 involves considerably more work. For example,<BR>it would be necessary to address the issues brought up in RFC 5080 Section 2.11. <BR>Also, there are existing deployments of RFC 3162, so backward compatibility issues need<BR>to be taken into account. So if your desire is to get this work done quickly, an<BR>RFC 3162 revision is best avoided unless it's nessary. <BR> <BR>In your original submission (draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00) there was a normative <BR>reference to RFC 3162, contained in the following paragraph:<BR> <BR> This attributes offers an entire IPv6 address to the DHCPv6 Server in<BR> contrast to Interface-id [RFC3162] that offers only 64 bits. Even<BR> concatenated with Framed-IPv6 prefix [RFC3162] to make a 128 bit IPv6<BR> address, this does not address scenarios where there is a need to<BR> offer multiple addresses or off-link IPv6 addresses that are not part<BR> of the prefix stored in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute. Storing<BR> the IPv6 address in the subscriber RADIUS profile is particularly<BR> useful as the Service Provider will know in advance the customers<BR> uplink IPv6 address, hence facilitating management or security policy<BR> implementation.<BR><BR>Based on this, it would appear that the major issue relating to RFC 3162<BR>is the potential usage of Framed-IPv6-Prefix to assign an entire IPv6<BR>address (e.g. use of a /128 prefix). RFC 5080 already addresses this<BR>to some extent in Section 2.11:<BR> <BR> The description of the Prefix-Length field in RFC 3162 indicates<BR> excessively wide latitude:<BR><BR> The length of the prefix, in bits. At least 0 and no larger than<BR> 128.<BR><BR> This length appears too broad, because it is not clear what a NAS<BR> should do with a prefix of greater granularity than /64. For<BR> example, the Framed-IPv6-Prefix may contain a /128. This does not<BR> imply that the NAS should assign an IPv6 address to the end user,<BR> because RFC 3162 already defines a Framed-IPv6-Identifier attribute<BR> to handle the Identifier portion.<BR><BR> It appears that the Framed-IPv6-Prefix is used for the link between<BR> the NAS and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) only if a /64 prefix is<BR> assigned. When a /64 or larger prefix is sent, the intent is for the<BR> NAS to send a routing advertisement containing the information<BR> present in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute.<BR><BR>In essence, RFC 5080 states that Framed-IPv6-Prefix is not to be used<BR>for IPv6 address assignment, which is the point you make in your document. <BR> <BR>Given this, it would appear to me that your original submission does not<BR>have a normative dependency on an RFC 3162 revision. Of course, if<BR>you're willing to sign up for the extra work required to complete such<BR>a revision, your efforts would be appreciated. <BR><BR><BR><BR> <TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD><A style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #0184cb; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood"><IMG style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" alt="i'm" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/ltr/i_charity.gif" NOSEND="1"> EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<BR><SPAN style="PADDING-RIGHT: 24px; PADDING-LEFT: 24px; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; COLOR: #3fb555; PADDING-TOP: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Join me</SPAN></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR>> Subject: RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks"<BR>> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:41:11 +0100<BR>> From: blourdel@cisco.com<BR>> To: rdroms@cisco.com; radiusext@ops.ietf.org<BR>> CC: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com<BR>> <BR>> Ralph,<BR>> <BR>> The problem I have with this approach is that giving more though to it,<BR>> I thing that<BR>> <BR>> IPv6-DNS attribute could be used in the RFC5006 context. So it is not<BR>> DHCP use only.<BR>> <BR>> IPv6-address could be used in a SLAC context for validation of the<BR>> advertised address by the gateway.<BR>> <BR>> So it turns that none of the attributes are DHCP specific.<BR>> <BR>> Regards<BR>> <BR>> Benoit<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) <BR>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:15 AM<BR>> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org<BR>> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Bernard Aboba; Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)<BR>> Subject: Re: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP<BR>> Networks"<BR>> <BR>> I support accepting "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a RADEXT WG<BR>> work item. There is a need for these attributes to support certain<BR>> IPv6 deployment models.<BR>> <BR>> I support handling "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a separate<BR>> work item. I am concerned that bundling the attributes into a revision<BR>> of RFC 3162 would incur too much delay.<BR>> <BR>> - Ralph<BR>> <BR>> On Oct 28, 2008, at Oct 28, 2008,2:00 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > At IETF 72, the RADEXT WG was polled on the following questions:<BR>> ><BR>> > 1) whether to accept "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks"<BR>> > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-<BR>> > 00.txt<BR>> > )<BR>> > as a RADEXT WG work item;<BR>> ><BR>> > 2) whether to handle this as a standalone work item or bundle it into <BR>> > a revision of RFC 3162 (RFC 3162bis).<BR>> ><BR>> > This is a RADEXT WG consensus call, in order to confirm the "sense of <BR>> > the room" at IETF 72 with respect to these two items.<BR>> ><BR>> > The RADEXT WG Consensus call will last until November 12, 2008. <BR>> > Please send your<BR>> > opinions on these two questions to the RADEXT WG mailing list <BR>> > (radiusext@ops.ietf.org ).<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> <BR></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C94891.96E97132-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:02:50 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W359BE92AF902D314EE6AA593110@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_fa9db87a-1777-4942-91cd-4d558589011f_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: REMINDER: Call for Review: RADIUS over TCP Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:02:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_fa9db87a-1777-4942-91cd-4d558589011f_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a reminder of an ongoing call for review of the individual submission "RADIUS over TCP". The document is available for review here:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00This review will last until November 19, 2008. Please respond to the list as to whether yousupport adoption of this document as a RADEXT WG work item. If you have any issues withthe document, please email them to the list in the RADEXT WG Issues format, described here:http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me --_fa9db87a-1777-4942-91cd-4d558589011f_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt; font-family:Verdana } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> <BR> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD> This is a reminder of an ongoing call for review of the individual <BR> submission "RADIUS over TCP". The document is available for review here:<BR>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00<BR><BR>This review will last until November 19, 2008. Please respond to the list as to whether you<BR>support adoption of this document as a RADEXT WG work item. If you have any issues with<BR>the document, please email them to the list in the RADEXT WG Issues format, described here:<BR>http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/<BR><BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR> <TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD><A style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #0184cb; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood"><IMG style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" alt="i'm" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/ltr/i_charity.gif"> EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<BR><SPAN style="PADDING-RIGHT: 24px; PADDING-LEFT: 24px; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; COLOR: #3fb555; PADDING-TOP: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Join me</SPAN></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></body> </html> --_fa9db87a-1777-4942-91cd-4d558589011f_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:01:20 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W48CF53F60DFD25FECBBF4E93110@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_92b2b6ea-7aa6-486a-9cd5-052a947b5e92_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: REMINDER: RADEXT WG last call on RADSEC Document Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:01:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_92b2b6ea-7aa6-486a-9cd5-052a947b5e92_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a reminder of the ongoing RADEXT WG last call on the document"TLS Encryption for RADIUS over TCP (RADSEC)", prior to sendingthis document on to the IESG for publication as an ExperimentalRFC. The document is available for inspection here:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02.txtRADEXT WG last call will complete on November 25, 2008. Pleasesend review comments to the RADEXT WG mailing list(radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format described on the RADEXTIssues List (http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT ). If youhave no comments, but believe the document should be progressed,please also send a note to the list to this effect. EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me --_92b2b6ea-7aa6-486a-9cd5-052a947b5e92_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt; font-family:Verdana } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> This is a reminder of the ongoing RADEXT WG last call on the document<BR>"TLS Encryption for RADIUS over TCP (RADSEC)", prior to sending<BR>this document on to the IESG for publication as an Experimental<BR>RFC. The document is available for inspection here:<BR>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02.txt<BR><BR>RADEXT WG last call will complete on November 25, 2008. Please<BR>send review comments to the RADEXT WG mailing list<BR>(radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format described on the RADEXT<BR>Issues List (http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT ). If you<BR>have no comments, but believe the document should be progressed,<BR>please also send a note to the list to this effect. <BR><BR><BR> <TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD><A style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #0184cb; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood"><IMG style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" alt="i'm" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/ltr/i_charity.gif"> EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<BR><SPAN style="PADDING-RIGHT: 24px; PADDING-LEFT: 24px; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; COLOR: #3fb555; PADDING-TOP: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Join me</SPAN></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></body> </html> --_92b2b6ea-7aa6-486a-9cd5-052a947b5e92_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:59:41 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W8162D160E5025DB6ABC2F93110@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_29305c24-7d85-4e5e-9ab1-181ecd832b8d_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: REDMINDER: RADEXT WG Last Call on Status-Server Document Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:59:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_29305c24-7d85-4e5e-9ab1-181ecd832b8d_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a reminder of an ongoing RADEXT WG last call on the document"Use of Status-Server Packets in the RADIUS Protocol", prior to sendingthis document on to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC. The document is available for inspection here:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02RADEXT WG last call will complete on November 25, 2008. Pleasesend review comments to the RADEXT WG mailing list(radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format described on the RADEXTIssues List (http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT ). If youhave no comments, but believe the document should be progressed,please also send a note to the list to this effect. EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me --_29305c24-7d85-4e5e-9ab1-181ecd832b8d_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt; font-family:Verdana } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD>This is a reminder of an ongoing RADEXT WG last call on the document<BR>"Use of Status-Server Packets in the RADIUS Protocol", prior to sending<BR>this document on to the IESG for publication as an Informational <BR>RFC. The document is available for inspection here:<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" rel=nofollow>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02</A><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" rel=nofollow><U><FONT color=#800080></A></FONT></U><BR><BR>RADEXT WG last call will complete on November 25, 2008. Please<BR>send review comments to the RADEXT WG mailing list<BR>(radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format described on the RADEXT<BR>Issues List (http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT ). If you<BR>have no comments, but believe the document should be progressed,<BR>please also send a note to the list to this effect. <BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><BR> <TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD><A style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #0184cb; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood"><IMG style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" alt="i'm" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/ltr/i_charity.gif"> EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<BR><SPAN style="PADDING-RIGHT: 24px; PADDING-LEFT: 24px; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; COLOR: #3fb555; PADDING-TOP: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Join me</SPAN></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></body> </html> --_29305c24-7d85-4e5e-9ab1-181ecd832b8d_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:57:35 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W106F8E0EDD693A78F058D293110@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_569fb7fa-edd0-4183-9963-675b546da5ac_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: REMINDER: Call for presentations Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:57:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_569fb7fa-edd0-4183-9963-675b546da5ac_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The RADEXT WG will meet on Tuesday morning at 9:00 AM in Rochester. The agenda and presentations are available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/73/materials.html If you haven't sent your presentation to Dave and myself, please do so NOW. EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me --_569fb7fa-edd0-4183-9963-675b546da5ac_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt; font-family:Verdana } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> The RADEXT WG will meet on Tuesday morning at 9:00 AM in Rochester. The agenda<BR> and presentations are available here:<BR> <BR> <A href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/73/materials.html">https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/73/materials.html</A><BR> <BR> If you haven't sent your presentation to Dave and myself, please do so NOW. <BR><BR><BR><BR> <TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD><A style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #0184cb; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood"><IMG style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" alt="i'm" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/ltr/i_charity.gif"> EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<BR><SPAN style="PADDING-RIGHT: 24px; PADDING-LEFT: 24px; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; COLOR: #3fb555; PADDING-TOP: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Join me</SPAN></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></body> </html> --_569fb7fa-edd0-4183-9963-675b546da5ac_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:26:26 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W34DBFCE36483623B69953493110@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_f40066b8-13cb-4b5a-8b67-0373220b3ae6_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: <blourdel@cisco.com>, <rdroms@cisco.com>, "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:25:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_f40066b8-13cb-4b5a-8b67-0373220b3ae6_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd suggest that the issue of whether the document should revise RFC 3162 is somewhat separate from whether it only relates to DHCPv6 or not. As Ralph points out, revising RFC 3162 involves considerably more work. For example, it would be necessary to address the issues brought up in RFC 5080 Section 2.11. Also, there are existing deployments of RFC 3162, so backward compatibility issues need to be taken into account. So if your desire is to get this work done quickly, an RFC 3162 revision is best avoided unless it's nessary. In your original submission (draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00) there was a normative reference to RFC 3162, contained in the following paragraph: This attributes offers an entire IPv6 address to the DHCPv6 Server in contrast to Interface-id [RFC3162] that offers only 64 bits. Even concatenated with Framed-IPv6 prefix [RFC3162] to make a 128 bit IPv6 address, this does not address scenarios where there is a need to offer multiple addresses or off-link IPv6 addresses that are not part of the prefix stored in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute. Storing the IPv6 address in the subscriber RADIUS profile is particularly useful as the Service Provider will know in advance the customers uplink IPv6 address, hence facilitating management or security policy implementation. Based on this, it would appear that the major issue relating to RFC 3162 is the potential usage of Framed-IPv6-Prefix to assign an entire IPv6 address (e.g. use of a /128 prefix). RFC 5080 already addresses this to some extent in Section 2.11: The description of the Prefix-Length field in RFC 3162 indicates excessively wide latitude: The length of the prefix, in bits. At least 0 and no larger than 128. This length appears too broad, because it is not clear what a NAS should do with a prefix of greater granularity than /64. For example, the Framed-IPv6-Prefix may contain a /128. This does not imply that the NAS should assign an IPv6 address to the end user, because RFC 3162 already defines a Framed-IPv6-Identifier attribute to handle the Identifier portion. It appears that the Framed-IPv6-Prefix is used for the link between the NAS and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) only if a /64 prefix is assigned. When a /64 or larger prefix is sent, the intent is for the NAS to send a routing advertisement containing the information present in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute. In essence, RFC 5080 states that Framed-IPv6-Prefix is not to be used for IPv6 address assignment, which is the point you make in your document. Given this, it would appear to me that your original submission does not have a normative dependency on an RFC 3162 revision. Of course, if you're willing to sign up for the extra work required to complete such a revision, your efforts would be appreciated. EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me> Subject: RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks"> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:41:11 +0100> From: blourdel@cisco.com> To: rdroms@cisco.com; radiusext@ops.ietf.org> CC: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> > Ralph,> > The problem I have with this approach is that giving more though to it,> I thing that> > IPv6-DNS attribute could be used in the RFC5006 context. So it is not> DHCP use only.> > IPv6-address could be used in a SLAC context for validation of the> advertised address by the gateway.> > So it turns that none of the attributes are DHCP specific.> > Regards> > Benoit> > > -----Original Message-----> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:15 AM> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Bernard Aboba; Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)> Subject: Re: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP> Networks"> > I support accepting "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a RADEXT WG> work item. There is a need for these attributes to support certain> IPv6 deployment models.> > I support handling "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a separate> work item. I am concerned that bundling the attributes into a revision> of RFC 3162 would incur too much delay.> > - Ralph> > On Oct 28, 2008, at Oct 28, 2008,2:00 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:> > > At IETF 72, the RADEXT WG was polled on the following questions:> >> > 1) whether to accept "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks"> > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-> > 00.txt> > )> > as a RADEXT WG work item;> >> > 2) whether to handle this as a standalone work item or bundle it into > > a revision of RFC 3162 (RFC 3162bis).> >> > This is a RADEXT WG consensus call, in order to confirm the "sense of > > the room" at IETF 72 with respect to these two items.> >> > The RADEXT WG Consensus call will last until November 12, 2008. > > Please send your> > opinions on these two questions to the RADEXT WG mailing list > > (radiusext@ops.ietf.org ).> >> >> >> --_f40066b8-13cb-4b5a-8b67-0373220b3ae6_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt; font-family:Verdana } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> I'd suggest that the issue of whether the document should revise RFC 3162 is somewhat<BR> separate from whether it only relates to DHCPv6 or not. <BR><BR>As Ralph points out, revising RFC 3162 involves considerably more work. For example,<BR> it would be necessary to address the issues brought up in RFC 5080 Section 2.11. <BR> Also, there are existing deployments of RFC 3162, so backward compatibility issues need<BR> to be taken into account. So if your desire is to get this work done quickly, an<BR> RFC 3162 revision is best avoided unless it's nessary. <BR> <BR> In your original submission (draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00) there was a normative <BR> reference to RFC 3162, contained in the following paragraph:<BR> <BR> This attributes offers an entire IPv6 address to the DHCPv6 Server in<BR> contrast to Interface-id [RFC3162] that offers only 64 bits. Even<BR> concatenated with Framed-IPv6 prefix [RFC3162] to make a 128 bit IPv6<BR> address, this does not address scenarios where there is a need to<BR> offer multiple addresses or off-link IPv6 addresses that are not part<BR> of the prefix stored in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute. Storing<BR> the IPv6 address in the subscriber RADIUS profile is particularly<BR> useful as the Service Provider will know in advance the customers<BR> uplink IPv6 address, hence facilitating management or security policy<BR> implementation.<BR><BR> Based on this, it would appear that the major issue relating to RFC 3162<BR> is the potential usage of Framed-IPv6-Prefix to assign an entire IPv6<BR> address (e.g. use of a /128 prefix). RFC 5080 already addresses this<BR> to some extent in Section 2.11:<BR> <BR> The description of the Prefix-Length field in RFC 3162 indicates<BR> excessively wide latitude:<BR><BR> The length of the prefix, in bits. At least 0 and no larger than<BR> 128.<BR><BR> This length appears too broad, because it is not clear what a NAS<BR> should do with a prefix of greater granularity than /64. For<BR> example, the Framed-IPv6-Prefix may contain a /128. This does not<BR> imply that the NAS should assign an IPv6 address to the end user,<BR> because RFC 3162 already defines a Framed-IPv6-Identifier attribute<BR> to handle the Identifier portion.<BR><BR> It appears that the Framed-IPv6-Prefix is used for the link between<BR> the NAS and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) only if a /64 prefix is<BR> assigned. When a /64 or larger prefix is sent, the intent is for the<BR> NAS to send a routing advertisement containing the information<BR> present in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute.<BR><BR> In essence, RFC 5080 states that Framed-IPv6-Prefix is not to be used<BR> for IPv6 address assignment, which is the point you make in your document. <BR> <BR> Given this, it would appear to me that your original submission does not<BR> have a normative dependency on an RFC 3162 revision. Of course, if<BR> you're willing to sign up for the extra work required to complete such<BR> a revision, your efforts would be appreciated. <BR><BR><BR><BR> <TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD><A style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #0184cb; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood"><IMG style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" alt="i'm" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/ltr/i_charity.gif"> EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<BR><SPAN style="PADDING-RIGHT: 24px; PADDING-LEFT: 24px; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; COLOR: #3fb555; PADDING-TOP: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Join me</SPAN></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR>> Subject: RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks"<BR>> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:41:11 +0100<BR>> From: blourdel@cisco.com<BR>> To: rdroms@cisco.com; radiusext@ops.ietf.org<BR>> CC: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com<BR>> <BR>> Ralph,<BR>> <BR>> The problem I have with this approach is that giving more though to it,<BR>> I thing that<BR>> <BR>> IPv6-DNS attribute could be used in the RFC5006 context. So it is not<BR>> DHCP use only.<BR>> <BR>> IPv6-address could be used in a SLAC context for validation of the<BR>> advertised address by the gateway.<BR>> <BR>> So it turns that none of the attributes are DHCP specific.<BR>> <BR>> Regards<BR>> <BR>> Benoit<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) <BR>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:15 AM<BR>> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org<BR>> Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Bernard Aboba; Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)<BR>> Subject: Re: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP<BR>> Networks"<BR>> <BR>> I support accepting "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a RADEXT WG<BR>> work item. There is a need for these attributes to support certain<BR>> IPv6 deployment models.<BR>> <BR>> I support handling "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a separate<BR>> work item. I am concerned that bundling the attributes into a revision<BR>> of RFC 3162 would incur too much delay.<BR>> <BR>> - Ralph<BR>> <BR>> On Oct 28, 2008, at Oct 28, 2008,2:00 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > At IETF 72, the RADEXT WG was polled on the following questions:<BR>> ><BR>> > 1) whether to accept "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks"<BR>> > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-<BR>> > 00.txt<BR>> > )<BR>> > as a RADEXT WG work item;<BR>> ><BR>> > 2) whether to handle this as a standalone work item or bundle it into <BR>> > a revision of RFC 3162 (RFC 3162bis).<BR>> ><BR>> > This is a RADEXT WG consensus call, in order to confirm the "sense of <BR>> > the room" at IETF 72 with respect to these two items.<BR>> ><BR>> > The RADEXT WG Consensus call will last until November 12, 2008. <BR>> > Please send your<BR>> > opinions on these two questions to the RADEXT WG mailing list <BR>> > (radiusext@ops.ietf.org ).<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> <BR></body> </html> --_f40066b8-13cb-4b5a-8b67-0373220b3ae6_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:55:26 +0000 From: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> To: "David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org> CC: "aaa-doctors@ietf.org" <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:54:40 -0500 Subject: RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Thread-Topic: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Thread-Index: AckJDgxBVJdeRKJ7SQSyCrp45My3KwxgSubQAI3ntvABSALmIAAHkbzAADpyrKAAA6ulUAAdki5AABcfc6AACOMHkAAA4/dQAANr5qAAoTRcMA= Message-ID: <8A8CFE8F89C38B41A749C19328C76D6308B1FB384F@exchange02.bridgewatersys.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Folks are throwing around terms like RADIUS server and RADIUS client all over the place. What is really lacking is a defintion - that we can all agree - of what is a RADIUS Server and a RADIUS Client. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of David B. Nelson > Sent: November 11, 2008 9:14 AM > To: dime@ietf.org > Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; radiusext@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of > dime-qos-parameters-06.txt > > Hi Hannes, > > > I don't think that attributes can be opaque to the RADIUS > client since > > the client has todo something with them. > > Maybe this is a matter of semantics. Just as the RADIUS > Server does not comprise the complete set of server-side AAA > functionality (e.g. policy servers, location servers, > authentication back-ends, etc. are logically separate), the > RADIUS Client does not comprise the complete set of AAA > functionality in the NAS. The RADIUS Client delivers > authorization information to the components of the NAS that > enforce access control. > > When you define the RADIUS Server and RADIUS Client in this > narrow sense, i.e. the code that deals with RADIUS PDUs, I > think you can claim the certain attributes are opaque to the > RADIUS Client (but certainly not to the NAS). > > -- Dave > > > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to > radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in > a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> > -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:34:43 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Alan DeKok'" <aland@deployingradius.com> Cc: "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "'radext mailing list'" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: Status of Issue 278 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:33:03 -0600 Message-ID: <006b01c94676$ba6b28c0$2f417a40$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AclGJpuZV5aV3UivTA6P1kXffyfb6QATO7cw Content-Language: en-us Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@deployingradius.com] writes: > Glen Zorn wrote: > ... > >> Without this text, IANA may allocate 0..255 to the new extended- > type, > >> potentially confusing people with conflicts between that and the > >> standard attribute space. > > > > Utter and complete nonsense. > > Which doesn't address the issue. Very astute. You are correct, it dismisses the "issue" as nonsense. Merely because an "issue" is present in an "issues list" means nothing; in particular, it doesn't mean that there is any WG consensus that the (in this case nonexistent) problem is actually an issue. > > a) Can IANA allocate numbers 0..255 in Ext-Type? Addressed in the existing draft. > b) If not, why not? > c) If so, is this a good idea? > > Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:15:50 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:14:39 +0100 Message-ID: <A05118C6DF9320488C77F3D5459B17B70892B332@xmb-ams-333.emea.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt Thread-Index: Ack5fBVL23bBlqt8TLKXf8KrzmgRfgDzZXkAAWhY4mAApkiaoA= From: "Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@cisco.com> To: "Bernard Aboba" <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l605; t26657680; x27521680; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=blourdel@cisco.com; z=From: "Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@ cisco.com> |Subject: RE: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rf c3162bis-01.txt |Sender: ; bh=VTU+0jS5LYLdmpSzlvGggmFo3xHszPGZmmx0xvHmJgk=; b=NnPAtN47J9kN7+2N1/GyJHAWaUzD4cmdlkvLQtJwn8HUiGORz4h5RCm4li fIq1w1reLxP7VS+3OD+k62SK4eqU+/D/OBIrCqq6ErW0moeJWrNxzhXjfwEh lh4desSD2n; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=blourdel@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); Bernard, Inline after BL>> -----Original Message----- From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 5:36 AM To: Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel); radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt It would be helpful to add RFC 5006 as a reference within Section 3.8 so as to clarify the potential use of the IPv6-DNS-Server-Address attribute. BL>> I will publish rev 03 with that addition. With respect to DHCP support, at IETF 72, questions were raised about the usage model in this document versus that in RFC 4014. For example, in RFC 4014, the RADIUS server speaks to the NAS, which can then act as a DHCP relay agent in talking to the DHCP server. In this document, it appears that the RADIUS server talks directly to the DHCP server. Is that right? If so, when does authentication take place? Is the intent to allocate other RADIUS attributes corresponding to existing DHCPv4/v6 options? BL>> there is no intend to add a RADIUS attribute per DHCP option. The new attributes are aimed at addressing deployment needs and partially restoring parity with IPv4 attributes (standard or proprietary). BL>> A possible option is to remove all DHCP references in the document. That is one way to solve the problem. The other way is to describe use of the RFc3162bis option in a DHCP context, but as there are many DHCP deployment scenarii, restricting to a particular set in RFC3162bis may be a problem. The generic character of RFC3162 allowed the use of the attribute in a DHCP context without major problem. BL>> What we could probably do is to clarify the use of Framed-IPv6-Prefix to an actual prefix, not an IPv6 address. Regards Benoit -----Original Message----- From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel) Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:14 AM To: Bernard Aboba; radiusext@ops.ietf.org Cc: gwz@net-zen.net; Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel) Subject: RE: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt Hello, The DHCP context has been removed on purpose to avoid restricting the use of the new attributes in different context. IPv6-DNS-Server-Address is a good example as it could be used by DHCPv6 or RA (see RFC5006). So we certainly should not restrict its use by DHCPv6. Even IPv6-Address could be used in an autoconfiguration context for validation of an address included in ND messages. All the above preaches to remove any reference to DHCP as too restrictive. A possibility would be to clarify the use of Framed-IPv6-Prefix and restrict its use to prefix shorter or equal to 64. Regards Benoit ________________________________ From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:07 AM To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt This document represents the folding of the attributes described in draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00.txt with RFC 3162. Currently, the RFC 3162 has been brought over to this document verbatim; only Sections 3.7 (defining the IPv6-Address attribute) and Section 3.8 (defining the IPv6-DNS-Server-Address attribute) have changed. As discussed at IETF 73, several points of confusion have arisen with respect to RFC 3162, and one of the reasons to produce an RFC 3162bis would be to clarify those issues. One of the issues, whether Framed-IPv6-Prefix could be used with DHCP Prefix delegation, was addressed in RFC 4818 (the answer is no). Another issue relates to whether the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute can be used with a prefix length greater than a /64 (e.g. /128). RFC 5080, Section 2.11 discusses this, though strangely it does not update RFC 3162. As noted in this section (see below), while this usage is feasible, it is not entirely clear what a typical NAS would do on receiving a Framed-IPv6-Prefix Attribute with a /128 prefix, since the typical practice is to announce the prefix using Router Advertisement. Given this, as well as the approach in RFC 4818, it would appear that the easiest way to distinguish RFC 3162 from RFC 4818 and draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp is that each of these documents addresses a different set of scenarios. RFC 3162 was largely focused on stateless address autoconfiguration (largely focused on PPP); RFC 4818 is about prefix delegation; draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp is about stateful addressing and configuration via DHCPv6. However, in merging draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp with RFC 3162, some of the explanatory information has been removed. This makes it difficult to understand that the new attributes relate to stateful address assignment via DHCPv6. For example, Section 3.7 introduces the IPv6-Address attribute. However, only some of the original text from draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00 is included to explain the usage of the attribute. >From the IETF 73 discussion, my understanding is that the purpose of this attribute is for the RADIUS server to assign one or more IPv6 addresses to a NAS which is acting as a DHCPv6 server, and will subsequently assign those addresses to a user acting as a DHCPv6 client. One question that arose during IETF 73 was how address assignment would relate to the authentication process. For example, draft-lourdelet-radius-ipv6-dhcp includes the following diagram: Router/Host (DHCPv6 Client) Router (DHCPv6 Server) RADIUS Server | | | |--Solicit(Address)-------->| | | |-----Request------------------->| | |<---------Accept(IPv6-Address)--| |<-Advertise(Address)-------| | |---Request(Address)------->| | |<---Reply(Address)---------| | In this diagram, no authentication is present at all, which lead to considerable discussion (and confusion) at IETF 73. Similarly, Section 3.8 defines the IPv6-DNS-Server-Address attribute, which is assigned to a NAS acting as a DHCPv6 server, with the goal of providing this DNS server address to the user within the DNS Recursive Name Server Option [RFC3646]. This was illustrated in the following diagram from draft-lourdelet-radius-ipv6-dhcp: Router/Host (DHCPv6 Client) Router (DHCPv6 Server) RADIUS Server | | | |--Solicit (DNS)------------>| | | |-Request----------------------->| | |<-------Accept(Ipv6-DNS)--------| |<-Advertise(DNS)------------| | |-Request(DNS)-------------->| | |<--Reply(DNS)---------------| Again, some context would be helpful. Overall, if the goal is to clarify issues from RFC 3162bis as well as to add new DHCPv6-related attributes, then it seems that additional work is required such as integration of the clarifications from RFC 5080, and explanation of the DHCPv6 usage scenarios. Text from RFC 5080: "2.11. Framed-IPv6-Prefix [RFC3162] Section 2.3 says: This Attribute indicates an IPv6 prefix (and corresponding route) to be configured for the user. It MAY be used in Access-Accept packets, and can appear multiple times. It MAY be used in an Access-Request packet as a hint by the NAS to the server that it would prefer these prefix(es), but the server is not required to honor the hint. Since it is assumed that the NAS will plumb a route corresponding to the prefix, it is not necessary for the server to also send a Framed-IPv6-Route attribute for the same prefix. An Internet Service Provider (ISP) may desire to support Prefix Delegation [RFC4818] at the same time that it would like to assign a prefix for the link between the NAS and the user. The intent of the paragraph was to enable the NAS to advertise the prefix (such as via a Router Advertisement). If the Framed-Routing attribute is used, it is also possible that the prefix would be advertised in a routing protocol such as Routing Information Protocol Next Generation (RIPNG). RFC 2865 Section 5.10 describes the purpose of Framed- Routing: This Attribute indicates the routing method for the user, when the user is a router to a network. It is only used in Access-Accept packets. The description of the Prefix-Length field in RFC 3162 indicates excessively wide latitude: The length of the prefix, in bits. At least 0 and no larger than 128. This length appears too broad, because it is not clear what a NAS should do with a prefix of greater granularity than /64. For example, the Framed-IPv6-Prefix may contain a /128. This does not imply that the NAS should assign an IPv6 address to the end user, because RFC 3162 already defines a Framed-IPv6-Identifier attribute to handle the Identifier portion. It appears that the Framed-IPv6-Prefix is used for the link between the NAS and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) only if a /64 prefix is assigned. When a /64 or larger prefix is sent, the intent is for the NAS to send a routing advertisement containing the information present in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute. The CPE may also require a delegated prefix for its own use, if it is decrementing the Hop Limit field of IP headers. In that case, it should be delegated a prefix by the NAS via the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute [RFC4818]. If the CPE is not decrementing Hop Limit, it does not require a delegated prefix." i'm EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD Join me <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood> -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:14:54 +0000 Message-ID: <491D2559.4030605@deployingradius.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:14:33 +0100 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net> CC: 'Bernard Aboba' <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, 'radext mailing list' <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Status of Issue 225 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Glen Zorn wrote: >> It is not *ridiculously* clear from the current document that >> "Length" >> and "Extended-Length" are strongly related. > > Maybe not to you... Pretend I'm channeling the 100's of people who've read the specs, and implemented broken NASes. > This would disallow the presence of multiple AVPs in a single attribute. > Are you claiming "WG Consensus" for this massive change? No. If there *is* only one AVP in a single attribute, then that relationship holds. >> Experience shows that without this text, people will create >> attributes >> that don't satisfy this criteria... and claim they're standards >> compliant. > > This comment is fascinating. What, exactly, is the "experience" you are > talking about? Are there already multiple implementations of the extended > attributes? Have you perfected time travel? I am, of course, not claiming experience with multiple implementations of the extended attributes. Pretending I'm making that claim is disingenuous at best. Instead, I'm claiming something much more difficult to understand. The "experience" is with previous standards, and the people who've implemented RADIUS software based on them. It's called "learning from experience", and "applying that experience to new situations". I've spent a lot of time talking with implementors of NASes and servers about their software. There are a number of styles of misunderstanding that they have about existing specifications. That experience can be used to review new standards, to minimize the potential for similar problems. >> Experience shows that without this text, people will create short >> fragments, causing problems for everyone else. > > More "experience". Where does this "experience" come from? The only > problems caused will be for those who wrote code that can't handle fragments > < 246 in length. Inefficient packing should be discouraged. On top of that, the size limitation of RADIUS packets means that inefficient packing of attributes can cause packets to fill quickly. This means that the packets can carry less information than they would otherwise have been able to carry. This has implications for all networks that depend on implementations of the standard. Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:00:54 +0000 Message-ID: <491D21ED.9030602@deployingradius.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:59:57 +0100 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net> CC: 'Bernard Aboba' <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, 'radext mailing list' <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Status of Issue 278 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Glen Zorn wrote: ... >> Without this text, IANA may allocate 0..255 to the new extended-type, >> potentially confusing people with conflicts between that and the >> standard attribute space. > > Utter and complete nonsense. Which doesn't address the issue. a) Can IANA allocate numbers 0..255 in Ext-Type? b) If not, why not? c) If so, is this a good idea? Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:07:33 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-DAV2667B6DA7D0022B591CD293160@phx.gbl> From: "Bernard Aboba" <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com> To: "'Glen Zorn'" <glenzorn@comcast.net>, "'Alan DeKok'" <aland@deployingradius.com>, "'radext mailing list'" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: Status of Issue 225 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:06:41 -0800 Message-ID: <000d01c945ec$ded99690$9c8cc3b0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AclFg9hgVWmo9iBjT1unV1TwIrQfrgAXYTmwAALL1YAContent-Language: en-us Glen Zorn said: "This would disallow the presence of multiple AVPs in a single attribute. Are you claiming "WG Consensus" for this massive change?" Multiple AVPs can be included within a vendor-specific attribute today, right? Given that, it doesn't seem reasonable to change this. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:54:07 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Alan DeKok'" <aland@deployingradius.com>, "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "'radext mailing list'" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: Status of Issue 225 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:53:13 -0600 Message-ID: <001601c945e2$ab792ae0$026b80a0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AclFg9hgVWmo9iBjT1unV1TwIrQfrgAXYTmw Content-Language: en-us > Bernard Aboba wrote: > > During the RADEXT WG last call on the RADIUS Extended Attributes > draft, > > you filed Issue 225: > > http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ > > > > The editor of the document, Glen Zorn, has now listed Issue 225 as > > resolved. However, before > > closing this issue, we wanted to get your consent. Please send a > note > > to the RADEXT WG > > mailing list indicating whether Issue 2225 is in fact resolved to > your > > satisfaction, and if not, > > what portion of the issue remains outstanding. The latest version of > > the Extended Attributes > > document is available for inspection here: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05 > > The issue that still need addressing are: > > -- > Section 4: > ... > I suggest also noting that "Extended-Length = Length - 6". Otherwise, > it becomes theoretically possible for them to have conflicting values > --- > > It is not *ridiculously* clear from the current document that > "Length" > and "Extended-Length" are strongly related. Maybe not to you... > I suggest a MUST: > > -- > Ext-Len > > >= 3. The length of the Type-Length-Value tuple in octets, > including the Ext-Type, Ext-Len and Value fields. The contents > of the Ext-Len field MUST be 6 less than the contents of the > Length field. That is: Ext-Len = Length - 6. > -- > This would disallow the presence of multiple AVPs in a single attribute. Are you claiming "WG Consensus" for this massive change? > Experience shows that without this text, people will create > attributes > that don't satisfy this criteria... and claim they're standards > compliant. This comment is fascinating. What, exactly, is the "experience" you are talking about? Are there already multiple implementations of the extended attributes? Have you perfected time travel? > > -- > Also, attributes generated by a client or server MUST NOT be > fragmented at boundaries other than 246 octets. Doing so would > decrease > the efficiency of packing. Robust implementations SHOULD support > receiving attributes fragmented at non-246 octet boundaries. > -- > > The only reference to 246 octets in the document says that attributes > *can* be fragmented at 246 octets. It doesn't forbid fragments smaller > than that. > > Experience shows that without this text, people will create short > fragments, causing problems for everyone else. More "experience". Where does this "experience" come from? The only problems caused will be for those who wrote code that can't handle fragments < 246 in length. > > Alan DeKok. > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:43:37 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Alan DeKok'" <aland@deployingradius.com>, "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "'radext mailing list'" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: Status of Issue 278 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:42:14 -0600 Message-ID: <001501c945e1$237d4460$6a77cd20$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AclFg1ESxfJ86tQOQ0uFHVERLOiFXAAXaywQ Content-Language: en-us > Bernard Aboba wrote: > > During the RADEXT WG last call on the RADIUS Extended Attributes > draft, > > you filed Issue 278: > > http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ > > > > The editor of the document, Glen Zorn, has now listed Issue 278 as > > resolved. However, before > > closing this issue, we wanted to get your consent. Please send a > note > > to the RADEXT WG > > mailing list indicating whether Issue 278 is in fact resolved to your > > satisfaction, > > The latest version of the draft addresses most of my comments. The > remaining issue that should be addressed is: > > --- > 8. IANA Considerations > ... > It also requires that IANA set up a new registry for the RADIUS > Extended Attribute Types. > > I suggest leaving the first 0..255 attributes as unallocated, in > order > to avoid confusion with legacy RADIUS attributes. > --- > > Without this text, IANA may allocate 0..255 to the new extended-type, > potentially confusing people with conflicts between that and the > standard attribute space. Utter and complete nonsense. > > Alan DeKok. > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:26:36 +0000 From: "David B. Nelson" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "'Abhishek Tiwari'" <abhisht@microsoft.com> Subject: RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:25:51 -0500 Message-ID: <A02AD68027764107966F6D76A21462DC@NEWTON603> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckSoJZ1a/KplopMRfa5N5aB7a5d3wy4pvJwAAHDgmA > "The comment period will last until October 5, 2008." > > Any progress? There have been a number of positive comments to the list with regard to accepting this draft as a WG work item, and no negative comments. Consider it accepted. The window for draft submission will open up again on the Monday of IETF 73 week. Given the simple nature of the draft, we can immediately start a WG Last Call, perhaps immediately after ITEF 73. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:41:34 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:41:11 +0100 Message-ID: <A05118C6DF9320488C77F3D5459B17B70892AD9F@xmb-ams-333.emea.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" Thread-Index: AclEZCFswkWx30iWTFOCd9l6YLBR1wBHvGpA From: "Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@cisco.com> To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l00; t26576472; x27440472; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=blourdel@cisco.com; z=From: "Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@ cisco.com> |Subject: RE: RADEXT WG consensus call on = 22IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" |Sender: ; bh=Jr03GyRPHn+8tSlHKvY/NfjudmOgJdd0+ydq9jRrVNY=; b=PbCw7rDBgkXARKtGX1eX0I6NvZtaFTCuDOV/i0NEDxCgzWIgoFi2LbsWI3 uYqgovdmjnxtlyDphgc9T1vUvISnUKNY/dYApNxqn+qVIsowU8Rr9amod7iw a6cfUyO7UY; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=blourdel@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); Ralph, The problem I have with this approach is that giving more though to it, I thing that IPv6-DNS attribute could be used in the RFC5006 context. So it is not DHCP use only. IPv6-address could be used in a SLAC context for validation of the advertised address by the gateway. So it turns that none of the attributes are DHCP specific. Regards Benoit -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:15 AM To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Bernard Aboba; Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel) Subject: Re: RADEXT WG consensus call on "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" I support accepting "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a RADEXT WG work item. There is a need for these attributes to support certain IPv6 deployment models. I support handling "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" as a separate work item. I am concerned that bundling the attributes into a revision of RFC 3162 would incur too much delay. - Ralph On Oct 28, 2008, at Oct 28, 2008,2:00 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > At IETF 72, the RADEXT WG was polled on the following questions: > > 1) whether to accept "IPv6 Attributes for DHCP Networks" > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp- > 00.txt > ) > as a RADEXT WG work item; > > 2) whether to handle this as a standalone work item or bundle it into > a revision of RFC 3162 (RFC 3162bis). > > This is a RADEXT WG consensus call, in order to confirm the "sense of > the room" at IETF 72 with respect to these two items. > > The RADEXT WG Consensus call will last until November 12, 2008. > Please send your > opinions on these two questions to the RADEXT WG mailing list > (radiusext@ops.ietf.org ). > > > -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:32:05 +0000 Message-ID: <491C1028.5020806@deployingradius.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:31:52 +0100 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, 'radext mailing list' <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Status of Issue 225 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bernard Aboba wrote: > During the RADEXT WG last call on the RADIUS Extended Attributes draft, > you filed Issue 225: > http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ > > The editor of the document, Glen Zorn, has now listed Issue 225 as > resolved. However, before > closing this issue, we wanted to get your consent. Please send a note > to the RADEXT WG > mailing list indicating whether Issue 2225 is in fact resolved to your > satisfaction, and if not, > what portion of the issue remains outstanding. The latest version of > the Extended Attributes > document is available for inspection here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05 The issue that still need addressing are: -- Section 4: ... I suggest also noting that "Extended-Length = Length - 6". Otherwise, it becomes theoretically possible for them to have conflicting values --- It is not *ridiculously* clear from the current document that "Length" and "Extended-Length" are strongly related. I suggest a MUST: -- Ext-Len >= 3. The length of the Type-Length-Value tuple in octets, including the Ext-Type, Ext-Len and Value fields. The contents of the Ext-Len field MUST be 6 less than the contents of the Length field. That is: Ext-Len = Length - 6. -- Experience shows that without this text, people will create attributes that don't satisfy this criteria... and claim they're standards compliant. -- Also, attributes generated by a client or server MUST NOT be fragmented at boundaries other than 246 octets. Doing so would decrease the efficiency of packing. Robust implementations SHOULD support receiving attributes fragmented at non-246 octet boundaries. -- The only reference to 246 octets in the document says that attributes *can* be fragmented at 246 octets. It doesn't forbid fragments smaller than that. Experience shows that without this text, people will create short fragments, causing problems for everyone else. Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:31:01 +0000 From: Abhishek Tiwari <abhisht@microsoft.com> To: "David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com> CC: "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:30:35 +0800 Subject: RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt Thread-Topic: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt Thread-Index: AckSoJZ1a/KplopMRfa5N5aB7a5d3wy4pvJw Message-ID: <701A6382E4B1B0458FC27DE8F6A477081A29792913@AA-EXMSG-C424.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 On September 9, 2008, David Nelson said: "The comment period will last until October 5, 2008." Any progress? Thanks, Abhishek -----Original Message----- From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of David B. Nelson Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:52 PM To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt This is call for the RADEXT WG to review the I-D draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt, which assigns new values of the RADIUS Tunnel-Type Attribute. After a discussion among the draft author, our esteemed Area Director and the WG Co-Chairs, it was decided that review of this document in RADEXT was appropriate and that, if the WG concurred, we would make it a WG item and forward it to the IESG to determine IETF Consensus. This document is now in RADEXT WG Pre-WG Review. Please review this very short (5 pages) draft located at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt Please send a message to the RADEXT list indicating: (1) Should this document be taken on as RADEXT WG work item? (2) Are the technical or editorial issues with this document? The comment period will last until October 5, 2008. Regards, Dave -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:25:56 +0000 Message-ID: <491C0E87.5000300@deployingradius.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:24:55 +0100 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, 'radext mailing list' <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Status of Issue 278 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bernard Aboba wrote: > During the RADEXT WG last call on the RADIUS Extended Attributes draft, > you filed Issue 278: > http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ > > The editor of the document, Glen Zorn, has now listed Issue 278 as > resolved. However, before > closing this issue, we wanted to get your consent. Please send a note > to the RADEXT WG > mailing list indicating whether Issue 278 is in fact resolved to your > satisfaction, The latest version of the draft addresses most of my comments. The remaining issue that should be addressed is: --- 8. IANA Considerations ... It also requires that IANA set up a new registry for the RADIUS Extended Attribute Types. I suggest leaving the first 0..255 attributes as unallocated, in order to avoid confusion with legacy RADIUS attributes. --- Without this text, IANA may allocate 0..255 to the new extended-type, potentially confusing people with conflicts between that and the standard attribute space. Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:03:37 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Tschofenig, Hannes \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)'" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com> Cc: <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>, "'Hannes Tschofenig'" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, "'Bernard Aboba'" <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com>, "'ext Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>, <dime@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:02:11 -0600 Message-ID: <006701c94451$93bb86b0$bb329410$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckJDgxBVJdeRKJ7SQSyCrp45My3KwxgSubQAI3ntvABSALmIAAHkbzAADpyrKAAA6ulUAAdki5AABcfc6AAH7IbEA= Content-Language: en-us Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) [mailto:// hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com] writes: > Glen, > > >It's very simple: if these attributes/AVPs are meant to be > >used in RADIUS then do the work in radext (or at the very > >least, follow the RADIUS design guidelines); note that those > >attributes could be carried w/o any fuss in Diameter as well. > >If they are meant to be used in Diameter, then design them as > >Diameter AVPs, using the features that Diameter enables > >(grouped AVPs, etc.). What you have done is neither, and have > >(predictably) ended up with a mess. > > You obviously don't care too much about my arguments. > > There are three things: > > * The QoS can be carried in RADIUS and Diameter. If that is the intention, then these should be RADIUS attributes. > > * This approach is totally inline with the RADIUS design guidelines. > The RADIUS design guidelines document does not require every info > element to following the standard encoding, as you know. I think that you've got at least two people who disagree with you on that. > > * Where todo certain documents is a matter of taste and not really a > bit > issue (at least so far). ??! You're not seriously suggesting that Diameter AVPs & RADIUS attributes are technically equivalent, are you? > We had a RADIUS draft, as I mentioned, but we focused all our efforts > on > the Diameter work. That's the main problem: the -05 draft contained Diameter AVPs but -06 doesn't. In fact, this is exactly the kind of application for which Diameter was designed & I find it rather annoying what's being proposed are poorly designed RADIUS attributes masquerading as Diameter AVPs. > > Ciao > Hannes -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:44:34 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Hannes Tschofenig'" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Cc: <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>, <mikko.aittola@nokia.com>, <dime@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:42:34 -0600 Message-ID: <006601c9444e$d3591ba0$7a0b52e0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckJDgxBVJdeRKJ7SQSyCrp45My3KwxgSubQAI3ntvABSALmIAAHkbzAADpyrKAAA6ulUAAdki5AABcfc6AACOMHkAAA4/dQAANrK/AAAWF8EAAQyknw Content-Language: en-us Hannes Tschofenig [mailto://Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] writes: > Hi Mikko, > > the reason is that we essentially "copied" the format defined in the > NSIS > group as they have been working on the definition of the QoS > parameters. > In the past folks in DIME did not have a problem with the format and I > also > specifically asked for feedback on this issue. > > In fact, I even compiled a version of the draft with Diameter encoding > once: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-05 As luck would have it, I think that was the one I read :-) -- no wonder I had no problem. > As one can see from that document it isn't totally easy either to use > Diameter AVPs as the format that is being referenced comes directly > from a > various RFCs and there is the obvious question whether the format > should be > taken as is or also "translated". For example, take a look at Section > 3.11.3. of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-05 > (PHB-Class AVP). What's wrong with it? It seems at least as comprehensible as section 4.13 of -06... ... -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:15:42 +0000 Message-ID: <49196722.50208@deployingradius.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:06:10 +0100 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net> CC: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Comment on draft-ietf-radext-design-05.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Glen Zorn wrote: > This document is 36 pages long, yet devotes only a single paragraph to the > use of extended RADIUS attributes. The goal was to finish the design document significantly before the extended attributes document was finished. Due to normal WG issues, this didn't happen. > Since the extended attribute set is > likely the one to be most used in the future, this seems a rather gross > oversight. The extended attributes document is referenced from the guidelines document. It suggests that designs not meeting the criteria of the guidelines document use the practices documented in the extended attributes document. > I would suggest that the authors try to design a few extended > attribute sets and then document that experience. How does this help the guidelines document? The extended attributes document meets WG consensus, and follows the traditional RADIUS data model for attributes. It would seem that everyone agrees that the specification it proposes is satisfactory, and meets their needs. > I mention this at this > late date because I expected this note to become an RFC long before the > extended attributes doc, but (FWIW) the latter has completed WG "Last" > Call... The guidelines document has seen multiple last calls, with last-minute comments at each one. Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:15:35 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C94418.93C5EA33" Subject: FW: WiMAX Forum Review Request Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:14:30 +0100 Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04011134EC@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> Thread-Topic: WiMAX Forum Review Request Thread-Index: Ack6zj5R1d3BLd5sS7ye19PxDPL7KgJSIknAAABxexAFrom: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C94418.93C5EA33 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ________________________________ From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@yegin.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:05 PM To: 'Bernard Aboba'; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com; pouya.taaghol@intel.com Subject: RE: WiMAX Forum Review Request Hi Bernard, WiMAX Forum NWG Security Team has discussed this I-D during the Seoul face-to-face meeting last week. Our NWG specifications use PKMv2, not PKMv1. Therefore, there is no official opinion of NWG on this I-D. Nevertheless, NWG members are requested to post their individual feedback on the IETF RADEXT WG mailing list. Thank you for keeping us informed. Regards, Alper From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:30 PM To: dromasca@avaya.com; dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com; alper.yegin@yegin.org; pouya.taaghol@intel.com Subject: WiMAX Forum Review Request Recently, the IETF RADEXT WG has received a request to accept the document "RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802.16 Privacy Key Management Version 1" as a working group work item. The specification is available here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-01.txt Since this document relates to the work of the WiMAX Forum, we would like to inquire as to whether WMF has an opinion on the advisability of having IETF take on this work, as well as to whether WMF has any editorial or technical feedback relating to the document. This document is likely to be discussed during the IETF 73 RADEXT WG meeting in Minneapolis. i'mEMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD Join me <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C94418.93C5EA33 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m = "http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3429" name=GENERATOR><!--[if !mso]> <STYLE>v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } o\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } w\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } .shape { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML) } </STYLE> <![endif]--> <STYLE>@font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @font-face { font-family: Segoe UI; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } P { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto } SPAN.EmailStyle18 { COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: personal-reply } .MsoChpDefault { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } OL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } UL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } </STYLE> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD> <BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left> <HR tabIndex=-1> <FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@yegin.org] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:05 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Bernard Aboba'; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com; pouya.taaghol@intel.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: WiMAX Forum Review Request<BR></FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=Section1> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Hi Bernard,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">WiMAX Forum NWG Security Team has discussed this I-D during the Seoul face-to-face meeting last week. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Our NWG specifications use PKMv2, not PKMv1. Therefore, there is no official opinion of NWG on this I-D. Nevertheless, NWG members are requested to post their individual feedback on the IETF RADEXT WG mailing list. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Thank you for keeping us informed.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Regards,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Alper<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P> <DIV style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none"> <DIV> <DIV style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none"> <P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'"> Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:30 PM<BR><B>To:</B> dromasca@avaya.com; dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com; alper.yegin@yegin.org; pouya.taaghol@intel.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> WiMAX Forum Review Request<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P> <P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">Recently, the IETF RADEXT WG has received a request to accept the document "RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802.16 Privacy Key Management Version 1" as a working group work item. The specification is available here:<BR><A href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-01.txt" target=_blank>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-01.txt</A><BR> <BR>Since this document relates to the work of the WiMAX Forum, we would like to inquire as to whether WMF has an opinion on the advisability of having IETF take on this work, as well as to whether WMF has any editorial or technical feedback relating to the document. This document is likely to be discussed during the IETF 73 RADEXT WG meeting in Minneapolis. <BR> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: black 1pt solid; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none" cellPadding=0 border=1> <TBODY> <TR> <TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.75pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 0.75pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0.75pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none"> <P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI','sans-serif'"><A href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood" target=_blank><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #0184cb; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><IMG id=_x0000_i1032 alt="i'm" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/pr01/ltr/i_charity.gif" border=0 NOSEND="1">EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<BR></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: #3fb555">Join me</SPAN></A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C94418.93C5EA33-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:53:40 +0000 From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> To: <mikko.aittola@nokia.com>, <dime@ietf.org> Cc: <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:52:56 +0200 Message-ID: <00d001c9440d$2f8b4610$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckJDgxBVJdeRKJ7SQSyCrp45My3KwxgSubQAI3ntvABSALmIAAHkbzAADpyrKAAA6ulUAAdki5AABcfc6AACOMHkAAA4/dQAANrK/AAAWF8EA= Hi Mikko, the reason is that we essentially "copied" the format defined in the NSIS group as they have been working on the definition of the QoS parameters. In the past folks in DIME did not have a problem with the format and I also specifically asked for feedback on this issue. In fact, I even compiled a version of the draft with Diameter encoding once: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-05 As one can see from that document it isn't totally easy either to use Diameter AVPs as the format that is being referenced comes directly from a various RFCs and there is the obvious question whether the format should be taken as is or also "translated". For example, take a look at Section 3.11.3. of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-05 (PHB-Class AVP). Ciao Hannes >-----Original Message----- >From: mikko.aittola@nokia.com [mailto:mikko.aittola@nokia.com] >Sent: 11 November, 2008 16:24 >To: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net; dime@ietf.org >Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; radiusext@ops.ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of >dime-qos-parameters-06.txt > >Hi, > >Would it be useful to add some text to the draft to explain >and justify the usage of the encoding format that you've >chosen for the qos parameters? > >It is not obvious why is it be better to define separate qos >parameter header and formats instead of using normal Diameter >AVP header and formats to transfer the data. > > >BR, >Mikko > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of >>ext Hannes Tschofenig >>Sent: 11 November, 2008 14:21 >>To: 'David B. Nelson'; dime@ietf.org >>Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; radiusext@ops.ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of >>dime-qos-parameters-06.txt >> >>Hi David, >> >> >>>Hannes Tschofenig writes... >>> >>>> * This approach is totally inline with the RADIUS design >guidelines. >>>> The RADIUS design guidelines document does not require every info >>>> element to following the standard encoding, as you know. >>> >>>The RADIUS Design Guidelines document is pragmatic. It >>>*strongly* suggests (SHOULD not MUST) that attributes which could >>>reasonably be implemented in a data-dictionary driven RADIUS >server as >>>data dictionary entries be encoded in the standard encoding. >>>Exceptions are made for (a) attributes which would >absolutely require >>>code changes in the server, (b) attributes used as authentication >>>credentials payloads, and >>>(c) attributes which are opaque to the RADIUS server and >>RADIUS client. >> >>I don't think that attributes can be opaque to the RADIUS >client since >>the client has todo something with them. >> >>The attributes are opaque to the RADIUS server and the respective >>component (dealing with policy-based admission control) needs to be >>implemented (=code changes). >> >>> >>>This is not a matter of aesthetics or personal design choice >>>-- it is dictated by the usage. >>> >>>BTW, *my* definition of opaque means that the data field of >>>the attribute, as described in the RADIUS document is a single >>>string, whose contents are defined in some non-RADIUS >>>document. Once the RADIUS attribute definition starts >>>breaking the attribute data payload into sub-fields it really >>>isn't opaque anymore. >> >>Currently, we do not yet define the RADIUS attributes (and >>that would be a >>RADEXT document) but they will then be defined as a string and >>within that >>string there will be the content of the QoS parameters. >> >>Ciao >>Hannes > -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:15:24 +0000 From: "David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com> To: <dime@ietf.org> Cc: <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:14:25 -0500 Organization: Elbrys Networks, Inc. Message-ID: <63F3725E9F224667917650FAC1525074@xpsuperdvd2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-index: AckJDgxBVJdeRKJ7SQSyCrp45My3KwxgSubQAI3ntvABSALmIAAHkbzAADpyrKAAA6ulUAAdki5AABcfc6AACOMHkAAA4/dQAANr5qA Hi Hannes, > I don't think that attributes can be opaque to the RADIUS > client since the client has todo something with them. Maybe this is a matter of semantics. Just as the RADIUS Server does not comprise the complete set of server-side AAA functionality (e.g. policy servers, location servers, authentication back-ends, etc. are logically separate), the RADIUS Client does not comprise the complete set of AAA functionality in the NAS. The RADIUS Client delivers authorization information to the components of the NAS that enforce access control. When you define the RADIUS Server and RADIUS Client in this narrow sense, i.e. the code that deals with RADIUS PDUs, I think you can claim the certain attributes are opaque to the RADIUS Client (but certainly not to the NAS). -- Dave -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:21:27 +0000 From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> To: "'David B. Nelson'" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net>, <dime@ietf.org> Cc: <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:20:58 +0200 Message-ID: <00c901c943f7$f5568140$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckJDgxBVJdeRKJ7SQSyCrp45My3KwxgSubQAI3ntvABSALmIAAHkbzAADpyrKAAA6ulUAAdki5AABcfc6AACOMHkAAA4/dQ Hi David, >Hannes Tschofenig writes... > >> * This approach is totally inline with the RADIUS design guidelines. >> The RADIUS design guidelines document does not require every info >> element to following the standard encoding, as you know. > >The RADIUS Design Guidelines document is pragmatic. It >*strongly* suggests (SHOULD not MUST) that attributes which >could reasonably be implemented in a data-dictionary driven >RADIUS server as data dictionary entries be encoded in the >standard encoding. Exceptions are made for (a) attributes >which would absolutely require code changes in the server, (b) >attributes used as authentication credentials payloads, and >(c) attributes which are opaque to the RADIUS server and RADIUS client. I don't think that attributes can be opaque to the RADIUS client since the client has todo something with them. The attributes are opaque to the RADIUS server and the respective component (dealing with policy-based admission control) needs to be implemented (=code changes). > >This is not a matter of aesthetics or personal design choice >-- it is dictated by the usage. > >BTW, *my* definition of opaque means that the data field of >the attribute, as described in the RADIUS document is a single >string, whose contents are defined in some non-RADIUS >document. Once the RADIUS attribute definition starts >breaking the attribute data payload into sub-fields it really >isn't opaque anymore. Currently, we do not yet define the RADIUS attributes (and that would be a RADEXT document) but they will then be defined as a string and within that string there will be the content of the QoS parameters. Ciao Hannes > > >_______________________________________________ >DiME mailing list >DiME@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:03:46 +0000 From: "David B. Nelson" <d.b.nelson@comcast.net> To: <dime@ietf.org> Cc: <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:02:39 -0500 Message-ID: <AE397DB2A12849609D6FA60186A800D6@NEWTON603> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckJDgxBVJdeRKJ7SQSyCrp45My3KwxgSubQAI3ntvABSALmIAAHkbzAADpyrKAAA6ulUAAdki5AABcfc6AACOMHkA= Hannes Tschofenig writes... > * This approach is totally inline with the RADIUS design guidelines. > The RADIUS design guidelines document does not require every info > element to following the standard encoding, as you know. The RADIUS Design Guidelines document is pragmatic. It *strongly* suggests (SHOULD not MUST) that attributes which could reasonably be implemented in a data-dictionary driven RADIUS server as data dictionary entries be encoded in the standard encoding. Exceptions are made for (a) attributes which would absolutely require code changes in the server, (b) attributes used as authentication credentials payloads, and (c) attributes which are opaque to the RADIUS server and RADIUS client. This is not a matter of aesthetics or personal design choice -- it is dictated by the usage. BTW, *my* definition of opaque means that the data field of the attribute, as described in the RADIUS document is a single string, whose contents are defined in some non-RADIUS document. Once the RADIUS attribute definition starts breaking the attribute data payload into sub-fields it really isn't opaque anymore. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:53:02 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: <ietf@ietf.org> Cc: <iesg@ietf.org>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Comment on draft-ietf-radext-design-05.txt Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:47:23 -0600 Message-ID: <007d01c9438e$b54c8e00$1fe5aa00$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AclDjq0P29MmFNaTQsunFdqXn5HefQ= Content-Language: en-us This document is 36 pages long, yet devotes only a single paragraph to the use of extended RADIUS attributes. Since the extended attribute set is likely the one to be most used in the future, this seems a rather gross oversight. I would suggest that the authors try to design a few extended attribute sets and then document that experience. I mention this at this late date because I expected this note to become an RFC long before the extended attributes doc, but (FWIW) the latter has completed WG "Last" Call... -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:58:05 +0000 From: "David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com> To: <dime@ietf.org> Cc: <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:57:30 -0500 Organization: Elbrys Networks, Inc. Message-ID: <13EDB72D1E7749B18E28992307CD40B8@xpsuperdvd2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-index: AckJDgxBVJdeRKJ7SQSyCrp45My3KwxgSubQAI3ntvABSALmIAAHkbzAADpyrKAAA6ulUAAdki5AAACe7yA Glen Zorn writes... > It's very simple: if these attributes/AVPs are meant to > be used in RADIUS then do the work in radext (or at the > very least, follow the RADIUS design guidelines); ... I agree. If functionality is required in *both* RADIUS and Diameter, it will need to be cast in the "least common denominator" format of RADIUS attributes, subject to the RADIUS Design Guidelines. Is there an actual requirement for these QoS attributes in RADIUS environments? -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:45:14 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Hannes Tschofenig'" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, "'Bernard Aboba'" <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com>, "'ext Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>, <dime@ietf.org> Cc: <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:43:14 -0600 Message-ID: <006901c94375$00051ee0$000f5ca0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckJDgxBVJdeRKJ7SQSyCrp45My3KwxgSubQAI3ntvABSALmIAAHkbzAADpyrKAAA6ulUAAdki5A Content-Language: en-us > Hi Bernard, > > We have currently three documents in DIME that relate to QoS: The > Diameter > QoS application specifies, as the name indicates, a Diameter > application for > usage with QoS. The QoS attribute draft provides the encoding of > classifiers > and AVPs relevant for QoS. The actual QoS parameters for an initial > profile > are defined in the QoS parameters draft. These drafts in DIME focus on > Diameter usage. We have dependencies from the 3GPP on these documents. > > It is, however, quite easy to imagine that QoS parameters might also be > useful in a RADIUS context. In fact we had a document some time ago > that > described how to re-use the same QoS parameter format for RADIUS. The > document is, however, expired now and would need a significant update > given > the changes we have seen in the DIME documents. It's very simple: if these attributes/AVPs are meant to be used in RADIUS then do the work in radext (or at the very least, follow the RADIUS design guidelines); note that those attributes could be carried w/o any fuss in Diameter as well. If they are meant to be used in Diameter, then design them as Diameter AVPs, using the features that Diameter enables (grouped AVPs, etc.). What you have done is neither, and have (predictably) ended up with a mess. > > When it comes to the format then our believe so far was that the format > of > the QoS parameters was not really important as the authorization > decision > and related admission control procedures by the AAA server will require > code > changes. Code changes to the AAA client will be needed as well since > the > parameters need to be feed into a Traffic Control module. > > Ciao > Hannes > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: aaa-doctors-bounces@ietf.org > >[mailto:aaa-doctors-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba > >Sent: 10 November, 2008 06:50 > >To: 'ext Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; dime@ietf.org > >Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; radiusext@ops.ietf.org > >Subject: Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] [Dime] AD Review of > >dime-qos-parameters-06.txt > > > >Glen Zorn said: > > > >"Still looks like (bad) RADIUS to me." > > > >Can someone explain the relationship of this document to (bad > >or good) RADIUS? > > > >Looking at the DIME WG charter, there is an item for the > >Diameter QoS application > >(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-q > >os-06.txt), > >Which in turn has normative references to QoS Attributes for Diameter > >(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-attrib > >utes-08.txt) > >and this document. > > > >None of these documents request allocation of any RADIUS > >attributes, or describe RADIUS Attribute formats. > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >AAA-DOCTORS mailing list > >AAA-DOCTORS@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors > > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:42:11 +0000 From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> To: "'Bernard Aboba'" <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com>, "'ext Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>, <dime@ietf.org> Cc: <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] [Dime] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:41:23 +0200 Message-ID: <00a101c942ff$5aa9a210$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckJDgxBVJdeRKJ7SQSyCrp45My3KwxgSubQAI3ntvABSALmIAAHkbzAADpyrKAAA6ulUA= Hi Bernard, We have currently three documents in DIME that relate to QoS: The Diameter QoS application specifies, as the name indicates, a Diameter application for usage with QoS. The QoS attribute draft provides the encoding of classifiers and AVPs relevant for QoS. The actual QoS parameters for an initial profile are defined in the QoS parameters draft. These drafts in DIME focus on Diameter usage. We have dependencies from the 3GPP on these documents. It is, however, quite easy to imagine that QoS parameters might also be useful in a RADIUS context. In fact we had a document some time ago that described how to re-use the same QoS parameter format for RADIUS. The document is, however, expired now and would need a significant update given the changes we have seen in the DIME documents. When it comes to the format then our believe so far was that the format of the QoS parameters was not really important as the authorization decision and related admission control procedures by the AAA server will require code changes. Code changes to the AAA client will be needed as well since the parameters need to be feed into a Traffic Control module. Ciao Hannes >-----Original Message----- >From: aaa-doctors-bounces@ietf.org >[mailto:aaa-doctors-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba >Sent: 10 November, 2008 06:50 >To: 'ext Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; dime@ietf.org >Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; radiusext@ops.ietf.org >Subject: Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] [Dime] AD Review of >dime-qos-parameters-06.txt > >Glen Zorn said: > >"Still looks like (bad) RADIUS to me." > >Can someone explain the relationship of this document to (bad >or good) RADIUS? > >Looking at the DIME WG charter, there is an item for the >Diameter QoS application >(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-q >os-06.txt), >Which in turn has normative references to QoS Attributes for Diameter >(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-attrib >utes-08.txt) >and this document. > >None of these documents request allocation of any RADIUS >attributes, or describe RADIUS Attribute formats. > > > >_______________________________________________ >AAA-DOCTORS mailing list >AAA-DOCTORS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors > -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:50:33 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-DAV621AD39C1AD07A5E44289931A0@phx.gbl> From: "Bernard Aboba" <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com> To: "'ext Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>, <dime@ietf.org> Cc: <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] [Dime] AD Review of dime-qos-parameters-06.txt Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:50:09 -0800 Message-ID: <003801c942ef$cf51c7b0$6df55710$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AckJDgxBVJdeRKJ7SQSyCrp45My3KwxgSubQAI3ntvABSALmIAAHkbzAADpyrKAContent-Language: en-us Glen Zorn said: "Still looks like (bad) RADIUS to me." Can someone explain the relationship of this document to (bad or good) RADIUS? Looking at the DIME WG charter, there is an item for the Diameter QoS application (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-06.txt), Which in turn has normative references to QoS Attributes for Diameter (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-08.txt) and this document. None of these documents request allocation of any RADIUS attributes, or describe RADIUS Attribute formats. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 04:36:46 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-DAV9CC55EDC961B729E8200C931A0@phx.gbl> From: "Bernard Aboba" <Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com> To: "'Benoit Lourdelet \(blourdel\)'" <blourdel@cisco.com>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:35:42 -0800 Message-ID: <002e01c942ed$ca8e1000$5faa3000$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: Ack5fBVL23bBlqt8TLKXf8KrzmgRfgDzZXkAAWhY4mAContent-Language: en-us It would be helpful to add RFC 5006 as a reference within Section 3.8 so as to clarify the potential use of the IPv6-DNS-Server-Address attribute. With respect to DHCP support, at IETF 72, questions were raised about the usage model in this document versus that in RFC 4014. For example, in RFC 4014, the RADIUS server speaks to the NAS, which can then act as a DHCP relay agent in talking to the DHCP server. In this document, it appears that the RADIUS server talks directly to the DHCP server. Is that right? If so, when does authentication take place? Is the intent to allocate other RADIUS attributes corresponding to existing DHCPv4/v6 options? -----Original Message----- From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel) Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:14 AM To: Bernard Aboba; radiusext@ops.ietf.org Cc: gwz@net-zen.net; Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel) Subject: RE: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt Hello, The DHCP context has been removed on purpose to avoid restricting the use of the new attributes in different context. IPv6-DNS-Server-Address is a good example as it could be used by DHCPv6 or RA (see RFC5006). So we certainly should not restrict its use by DHCPv6. Even IPv6-Address could be used in an autoconfiguration context for validation of an address included in ND messages. All the above preaches to remove any reference to DHCP as too restrictive. A possibility would be to clarify the use of Framed-IPv6-Prefix and restrict its use to prefix shorter or equal to 64. Regards Benoit ________________________________ From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:07 AM To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt This document represents the folding of the attributes described in draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00.txt with RFC 3162. Currently, the RFC 3162 has been brought over to this document verbatim; only Sections 3.7 (defining the IPv6-Address attribute) and Section 3.8 (defining the IPv6-DNS-Server-Address attribute) have changed. As discussed at IETF 73, several points of confusion have arisen with respect to RFC 3162, and one of the reasons to produce an RFC 3162bis would be to clarify those issues. One of the issues, whether Framed-IPv6-Prefix could be used with DHCP Prefix delegation, was addressed in RFC 4818 (the answer is no). Another issue relates to whether the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute can be used with a prefix length greater than a /64 (e.g. /128). RFC 5080, Section 2.11 discusses this, though strangely it does not update RFC 3162. As noted in this section (see below), while this usage is feasible, it is not entirely clear what a typical NAS would do on receiving a Framed-IPv6-Prefix Attribute with a /128 prefix, since the typical practice is to announce the prefix using Router Advertisement. Given this, as well as the approach in RFC 4818, it would appear that the easiest way to distinguish RFC 3162 from RFC 4818 and draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp is that each of these documents addresses a different set of scenarios. RFC 3162 was largely focused on stateless address autoconfiguration (largely focused on PPP); RFC 4818 is about prefix delegation; draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp is about stateful addressing and configuration via DHCPv6. However, in merging draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp with RFC 3162, some of the explanatory information has been removed. This makes it difficult to understand that the new attributes relate to stateful address assignment via DHCPv6. For example, Section 3.7 introduces the IPv6-Address attribute. However, only some of the original text from draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00 is included to explain the usage of the attribute. >From the IETF 73 discussion, my understanding is that the purpose of this attribute is for the RADIUS server to assign one or more IPv6 addresses to a NAS which is acting as a DHCPv6 server, and will subsequently assign those addresses to a user acting as a DHCPv6 client. One question that arose during IETF 73 was how address assignment would relate to the authentication process. For example, draft-lourdelet-radius-ipv6-dhcp includes the following diagram: Router/Host (DHCPv6 Client) Router (DHCPv6 Server) RADIUS Server | | | |--Solicit(Address)-------->| | | |-----Request------------------->| | |<---------Accept(IPv6-Address)--| |<-Advertise(Address)-------| | |---Request(Address)------->| | |<---Reply(Address)---------| | In this diagram, no authentication is present at all, which lead to considerable discussion (and confusion) at IETF 73. Similarly, Section 3.8 defines the IPv6-DNS-Server-Address attribute, which is assigned to a NAS acting as a DHCPv6 server, with the goal of providing this DNS server address to the user within the DNS Recursive Name Server Option [RFC3646]. This was illustrated in the following diagram from draft-lourdelet-radius-ipv6-dhcp: Router/Host (DHCPv6 Client) Router (DHCPv6 Server) RADIUS Server | | | |--Solicit (DNS)------------>| | | |-Request----------------------->| | |<-------Accept(Ipv6-DNS)--------| |<-Advertise(DNS)------------| | |-Request(DNS)-------------->| | |<--Reply(DNS)---------------| Again, some context would be helpful. Overall, if the goal is to clarify issues from RFC 3162bis as well as to add new DHCPv6-related attributes, then it seems that additional work is required such as integration of the clarifications from RFC 5080, and explanation of the DHCPv6 usage scenarios. Text from RFC 5080: "2.11. Framed-IPv6-Prefix [RFC3162] Section 2.3 says: This Attribute indicates an IPv6 prefix (and corresponding route) to be configured for the user. It MAY be used in Access-Accept packets, and can appear multiple times. It MAY be used in an Access-Request packet as a hint by the NAS to the server that it would prefer these prefix(es), but the server is not required to honor the hint. Since it is assumed that the NAS will plumb a route corresponding to the prefix, it is not necessary for the server to also send a Framed-IPv6-Route attribute for the same prefix. An Internet Service Provider (ISP) may desire to support Prefix Delegation [RFC4818] at the same time that it would like to assign a prefix for the link between the NAS and the user. The intent of the paragraph was to enable the NAS to advertise the prefix (such as via a Router Advertisement). If the Framed-Routing attribute is used, it is also possible that the prefix would be advertised in a routing protocol such as Routing Information Protocol Next Generation (RIPNG). RFC 2865 Section 5.10 describes the purpose of Framed- Routing: This Attribute indicates the routing method for the user, when the user is a router to a network. It is only used in Access-Accept packets. The description of the Prefix-Length field in RFC 3162 indicates excessively wide latitude: The length of the prefix, in bits. At least 0 and no larger than 128. This length appears too broad, because it is not clear what a NAS should do with a prefix of greater granularity than /64. For example, the Framed-IPv6-Prefix may contain a /128. This does not imply that the NAS should assign an IPv6 address to the end user, because RFC 3162 already defines a Framed-IPv6-Identifier attribute to handle the Identifier portion. It appears that the Framed-IPv6-Prefix is used for the link between the NAS and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) only if a /64 prefix is assigned. When a /64 or larger prefix is sent, the intent is for the NAS to send a routing advertisement containing the information present in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute. The CPE may also require a delegated prefix for its own use, if it is decrementing the Hop Limit field of IP headers. In that case, it should be delegated a prefix by the NAS via the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute [RFC4818]. If the CPE is not decrementing Hop Limit, it does not require a delegated prefix." i'm EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD Join me <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood> -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:15:27 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 19:14:12 +0100 Message-ID: <A05118C6DF9320488C77F3D5459B17B7088CF46D@xmb-ams-333.emea.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt Thread-Index: Ack5fBVL23bBlqt8TLKXf8KrzmgRfgDzZXkA From: "Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@cisco.com> To: "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Cc: <gwz@net-zen.net>, "Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@cisco.com> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l40; t26254453; x27118453; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=blourdel@cisco.com; z=From: "Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@ cisco.com> |Subject: RE: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rf c3162bis-01.txt |Sender: ; bh=lBCT0GTEQbZMN9g4q8WDWl8x8ft5SXRBOCCLDORr8XM=; b=n67yND/IlLrkBYkVZlJ029g8GOisATk9i6bs20oiZmTsYybkPO0CgMmrT2 wvKqeVAkHT8ixRF8dhfJJF/8SBlBnQuO0ADFJ2e8aDhVjIZS5T4xoufVhd0s IwSlN4bzsy; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=blourdel@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); Hello, The DHCP context has been removed on purpose to avoid restricting the use of the new attributes in different context. IPv6-DNS-Server-Address is a good example as it could be used by DHCPv6 or RA (see RFC5006). So we certainly should not restrict its use by DHCPv6. Even IPv6-Address could be used in an autoconfiguration context for validation of an address included in ND messages. All the above preaches to remove any reference to DHCP as too restrictive. A possibility would be to clarify the use of Framed-IPv6-Prefix and restrict its use to prefix shorter or equal to 64. Regards Benoit ________________________________ From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:07 AM To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt Review of draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-01.txt This document represents the folding of the attributes described in draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00.txt with RFC 3162. Currently, the RFC 3162 has been brought over to this document verbatim; only Sections 3.7 (defining the IPv6-Address attribute) and Section 3.8 (defining the IPv6-DNS-Server-Address attribute) have changed. As discussed at IETF 73, several points of confusion have arisen with respect to RFC 3162, and one of the reasons to produce an RFC 3162bis would be to clarify those issues. One of the issues, whether Framed-IPv6-Prefix could be used with DHCP Prefix delegation, was addressed in RFC 4818 (the answer is no). Another issue relates to whether the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute can be used with a prefix length greater than a /64 (e.g. /128). RFC 5080, Section 2.11 discusses this, though strangely it does not update RFC 3162. As noted in this section (see below), while this usage is feasible, it is not entirely clear what a typical NAS would do on receiving a Framed-IPv6-Prefix Attribute with a /128 prefix, since the typical practice is to announce the prefix using Router Advertisement. Given this, as well as the approach in RFC 4818, it would appear that the easiest way to distinguish RFC 3162 from RFC 4818 and draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp is that each of these documents addresses a different set of scenarios. RFC 3162 was largely focused on stateless address autoconfiguration (largely focused on PPP); RFC 4818 is about prefix delegation; draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp is about stateful addressing and configuration via DHCPv6. However, in merging draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp with RFC 3162, some of the explanatory information has been removed. This makes it difficult to understand that the new attributes relate to stateful address assignment via DHCPv6. For example, Section 3.7 introduces the IPv6-Address attribute. However, only some of the original text from draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00 is included to explain the usage of the attribute. >From the IETF 73 discussion, my understanding is that the purpose of this attribute is for the RADIUS server to assign one or more IPv6 addresses to a NAS which is acting as a DHCPv6 server, and will subsequently assign those addresses to a user acting as a DHCPv6 client. One question that arose during IETF 73 was how address assignment would relate to the authentication process. For example, draft-lourdelet-radius-ipv6-dhcp includes the following diagram: Router/Host (DHCPv6 Client) Router (DHCPv6 Server) RADIUS Server | | | |--Solicit(Address)-------->| | | |-----Request------------------->| | |<---------Accept(IPv6-Address)--| |<-Advertise(Address)-------| | |---Request(Address)------->| | |<---Reply(Address)---------| | In this diagram, no authentication is present at all, which lead to considerable discussion (and confusion) at IETF 73. Similarly, Section 3.8 defines the IPv6-DNS-Server-Address attribute, which is assigned to a NAS acting as a DHCPv6 server, with the goal of providing this DNS server address to the user within the DNS Recursive Name Server Option [RFC3646]. This was illustrated in the following diagram from draft-lourdelet-radius-ipv6-dhcp: Router/Host (DHCPv6 Client) Router (DHCPv6 Server) RADIUS Server | | | |--Solicit (DNS)------------>| | | |-Request----------------------->| | |<-------Accept(Ipv6-DNS)--------| |<-Advertise(DNS)------------| | |-Request(DNS)-------------->| | |<--Reply(DNS)---------------| Again, some context would be helpful. Overall, if the goal is to clarify issues from RFC 3162bis as well as to add new DHCPv6-related attributes, then it seems that additional work is required such as integration of the clarifications from RFC 5080, and explanation of the DHCPv6 usage scenarios. Text from RFC 5080: "2.11. Framed-IPv6-Prefix [RFC3162] Section 2.3 says: This Attribute indicates an IPv6 prefix (and corresponding route) to be configured for the user. It MAY be used in Access-Accept packets, and can appear multiple times. It MAY be used in an Access-Request packet as a hint by the NAS to the server that it would prefer these prefix(es), but the server is not required to honor the hint. Since it is assumed that the NAS will plumb a route corresponding to the prefix, it is not necessary for the server to also send a Framed-IPv6-Route attribute for the same prefix. An Internet Service Provider (ISP) may desire to support Prefix Delegation [RFC4818] at the same time that it would like to assign a prefix for the link between the NAS and the user. The intent of the paragraph was to enable the NAS to advertise the prefix (such as via a Router Advertisement). If the Framed-Routing attribute is used, it is also possible that the prefix would be advertised in a routing protocol such as Routing Information Protocol Next Generation (RIPNG). RFC 2865 Section 5.10 describes the purpose of Framed- Routing: This Attribute indicates the routing method for the user, when the user is a router to a network. It is only used in Access-Accept packets. The description of the Prefix-Length field in RFC 3162 indicates excessively wide latitude: The length of the prefix, in bits. At least 0 and no larger than 128. This length appears too broad, because it is not clear what a NAS should do with a prefix of greater granularity than /64. For example, the Framed-IPv6-Prefix may contain a /128. This does not imply that the NAS should assign an IPv6 address to the end user, because RFC 3162 already defines a Framed-IPv6-Identifier attribute to handle the Identifier portion. It appears that the Framed-IPv6-Prefix is used for the link between the NAS and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) only if a /64 prefix is assigned. When a /64 or larger prefix is sent, the intent is for the NAS to send a routing advertisement containing the information present in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute. The CPE may also require a delegated prefix for its own use, if it is decrementing the Hop Limit field of IP headers. In that case, it should be delegated a prefix by the NAS via the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute [RFC4818]. If the CPE is not decrementing Hop Limit, it does not require a delegated prefix." i'm EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD Join me <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood> -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:43:31 +0000 Message-ID: <4913F16C.2050509@restena.lu> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:42:36 +0100 From: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080922) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> CC: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for Review: RADIUS over TCP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, > This is a call for review of the individual submission "RADIUS over > TCP". > The document is available for review here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 > > This review will last until November 19, 2008. Please respond to the > list as to whether you > support adoption of this document as a RADEXT WG work item. If you > have any issues with > the document, please email them to the list in the RADEXT WG Issues > format, described here: > http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ I support adoption. Stefan -- Stefan WINTER Ingenieur de Recherche Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg Tel: +352 424409 1 Fax: +352 422473 -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:11:15 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Greg Weber'" <gdweber@gmail.com> Cc: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: Cmts on ExtAttrs-05 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 18:09:52 -0800 Message-ID: <004201c9407d$ed818d70$c884a850$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: AclAYtFYvw0DZh39R8yOTBt6k12Q6wAGhRxw Content-Language: en-us Greg Weber [mailto:gdweber@gmail.com] writes: ... > A couple editorial comments on the current (-05) extended attributes > draft: > > Section 5, under More bit description: > "exceeds 246 octets" -> "exceeds 245 octets" Fixed. > Section 5, under Ext-Len description: > ">=3." -> ">=4." Fixed. > Figure 3: the second Ext-Type's value: > "(0x00" -> "(0x01)" Fixed. > Figure 4: I think the very last two octet values swapped. Fixed. > Figure 4: The third attribute in this figure violates this earlier > MUST from section 4: Yup. Anybody happen to remember whose idea it was to put that restriction in place? > "If an Extended Attribute contains more than one TLV then all of the > encapsulated > TLVs MUST fit completely within the Extended Attribute." > Not sure if this is a problem with the text or the example -or maybe > just wording. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:57:48 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=j9n9Qk6tnLB9qC4W9SbHX5Fja+nOsnodljLY2ZqdGqI=; b=Kg6DAL0DLZDX3CZj/W4qAwvJTehbk7PQsogoP4Nb3XX7COllEIzKVe8xuRKGfwtMiG uJ+im45AvBQ5a8ANEvygTnLwCVwkFGVtxH5ZO2RE5ezlH0bscj01qivOeY4pOE2EHUif spdZrDPt99SzX0vdbc8bwcacXi2Gi77la+ysgDomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=SJhj/Y+tiOqrRHsVlqxXKK9DV2Uqe14upsId/jSYneiAaXy/46MrdKJY7KcHQ0kVv6 E/I1vbdkLTj5c+/Rt2QC1NWV/LVTBydRajSeyg0W1JevBFE4nuPeUpCfmsnsgilmO2PY XqKbk0G9XhmKm2/WIzsPfM7N1V3z/geU601VwMessage-ID: <d11ef1350811061457l6e286791j97cef5c02fb6a61c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 17:57:36 -0500 From: "Greg Weber" <gdweber@gmail.com> To: "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Review Requested: draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I think Issue 250 can be closed. Greg On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote: > Currently the RADEXT WG Issues tracker lists 6 open issues relating to the > RADIUS Extended Attributes document. Given that the editor now claims to > have resolved open Issues from RADEXT WG last call, we are requesting that > individuals who filed those issues read the current document, and send email > to the list indicating whether their issue is resolved. > > The RADEXT WG Issues list is available here: > http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ > > The latest version of the Extended Attributes document can be found here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05 > > The list of previously opened issues is as follows: > > Extended Attributes > > Issue Number > > Status Type Description Owner > Issue 225 Pending Technical Review Alan DeKok > Issue 250 Pending Technical Comments Greg Weber > Issue 251 Pending Technical Review Bernard Aboba > Issue 272 Pending Technical No overall type in Extended Attributes Glen Zorn > Issue 278 Pending Technical Comments Alan DeKok > Issue 279 No Discussion Technical Comments Stefan Winter > > >> From: glenzorn@comcast.net >> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org >> CC: glenzorn@comcast.net >> Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt >> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0800 >> >> All known issues are resolved to my satisfaction but YMMV; complaints to >> me. >> ;-) > > -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:56:39 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=JKXhNsG3apRfDm4JvB9UWlcZVHcIsse/nk7j5JsIz1E=; b=iu7tKbknAJEbmq3CLYkxkfXOWm1+LUxuV/6c2VzmOAib7KBkh5H4lFQ1w0Z1HspvZ+ U+QYfCgftWK+LdFdPDigQrYllKUYZa6NcKvgwdfgB5zbWyCvZeT9L9YU+9dN8y7ZU0rG OGG/fblSlnGXN4O5mHa9qntMkVmJuMTPBtyE0DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=x9GZOOD0TLw1fEaX6lMUjWCI9BjpoLsFxdmDhUZQZ4iz+DF6z5wo+KCoD7r3vKJZnB fvvWWuugXTjywAr+PPHsHLNnrKSD769epU1XHQbC1BN/kxGGL+lzi47GYfz+3esCmcQM SGhL11iuuR3JnS1To7kj4Y5AMOKBu4ZtZYHPsMessage-ID: <d11ef1350811061455h2f44334co90e248b2b4beacc2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 17:55:52 -0500 From: "Greg Weber" <gdweber@gmail.com> To: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>, radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Cmts on ExtAttrs-05 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Editorial cmts on ExtAttrs-05 Submitter name: Greg Weber Submitter email address: gdweber@gmail.com Date first submitted: Nov 6, '08 Reference: none Document: draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Comment type: 'E'ditorial Priority: 'S' Must fix Section: various Rationale/Explanation of issue: A couple editorial comments on the current (-05) extended attributes draft: Section 5, under More bit description: "exceeds 246 octets" -> "exceeds 245 octets" Section 5, under Ext-Len description: ">=3." -> ">=4." Figure 3: the second Ext-Type's value: "(0x00" -> "(0x01)" Figure 4: I think the very last two octet values swapped. Figure 4: The third attribute in this figure violates this earlier MUST from section 4: "If an Extended Attribute contains more than one TLV then all of the encapsulated TLVs MUST fit completely within the Extended Attribute." Not sure if this is a problem with the text or the example -or maybe just wording. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:17:24 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=o/FT53Qv1FSGJa+v8tbOP68iR29NmL2fJaWzZBpVdUk=; b=oyuKrXJ9yPFiSJsuIGsB8R++gbKFK7rej/ICFcAHylt7FyyF0Yth+fqydZcjvQh0kf 9BpOTqCWdy2emiVGRGGATNGMy87Chnucg/gheVnO/MhTl1PjUVBxBbIzKKNfylGEQPB8 E3x5DB0deTTBlsJyZMm+gP8XW6FPfjEuX1x3wDomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=p/ggkSO9L3nUeNwysexBxB/C1+5kT9BulyInBHKatjQAxfi6Hs8lrij7o2XEaedCyX Tj/cY7jXet0QbdgWgNllTDOkfa4dgxx2RvcP5z5AWCkoF9binKUMPBza5TrBXLtzdvmf V/FSmQZW0f1tJQ1KCaiIv1W+L4gNzT3YHI89gMessage-ID: <c3a174020811060716g70b42e73paeb1e1b05b254259@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 13:16:32 -0200 From: "Claudio Lapidus" <clapidus@gmail.com> To: "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Call for Review: RADIUS over TCP Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_4974_24215922.1225984592892" ------=_Part_4974_24215922.1225984592892 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I support the adoption of this document as a WG work item. regards, cl. On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>wrote: > This is a call for review of the individual submission "RADIUS over TCP". > The document is available for review here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 > > This review will last until November 19, 2008. Please respond to the list > as to whether you > support adoption of this document as a RADEXT WG work item. If you have > any issues with > the document, please email them to the list in the RADEXT WG Issues format, > described here: > http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/<http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/> > > [image: i'm] EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD > Join me<http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood> > ------=_Part_4974_24215922.1225984592892 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I support the adoption of this document as a WG work item.<br><br>regards,<br>cl.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Bernard Aboba <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com">bernard_aboba@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div> This is a call for review of the individual submission "RADIUS over TCP". <br>The document is available for review here:<br><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00</a><br> <br>This review will last until November 19, 2008. Please respond to the list as to whether you<br>support adoption of this document as a RADEXT WG work item. If you have any issues with<br>the document, please email them to the list in the RADEXT WG Issues format, described here:<br> <a href="http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/" target="_blank">http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/</a><br><br><table style="border-top: 1px solid black; font-weight: bold;"><tbody><tr><td><a href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood" style="font-size: 9pt; color: rgb(1, 132, 203); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img style="border-style: none;" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/pr01/ltr/i_charity.gif" alt="i'm"> EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<br> <span style="padding: 0px 24px; font-size: 8pt; color: rgb(63, 181, 85); text-decoration: underline;">Join me</span></a></td></tr></tbody></table></div> </blockquote></div><br> ------=_Part_4974_24215922.1225984592892-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:01:04 +0000 Message-ID: <4912F867.8010607@uninett.no> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:00:07 +0100 From: Stig Venaas <stig.venaas@uninett.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081007) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for Review: RADIUS over TCP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bernard Aboba wrote: > This is a call for review of the individual submission "RADIUS over TCP". > The document is available for review here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 > > This review will last until November 19, 2008. Please respond to the > list as to whether you > support adoption of this document as a RADEXT WG work item. If you have I support adoption, Stig > any issues with > the document, please email them to the list in the RADEXT WG Issues > format, described here: > http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ > > i'm EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD > Join me <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood> > -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:01:42 +0000 Message-ID: <49107FC1.6070607@deployingradius.com> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:00:49 -0500 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stig Venaas <stig.venaas@uninett.no> CC: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: RADEXT WG Last Call on Status-Server Document Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stig Venaas wrote: > I've found some issues that I just reported in two separate mails. > Once those are addressed I support progressing the document. FWIW > I've also implemented it based on this draft, and successfully > tested with other implementations. Those issues are minor, and will be addressed in the next revision. Thanks for your review. Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:09:49 +0000 Message-ID: <49105772.8020108@deployingradius.com> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:08:50 -0500 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the RADIUS EXTensions Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Use of Status-Server Packets in the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol This draft contains that changes that were recommended by the WG at the last meeting: Ability to send Status-Server packets to a CoA port. Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:46:52 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W253312B3BB17E479B66F37931C0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_bf28e224-771d-4c72-9c61-b81d2647ffcc_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Call for Review: RADIUS over TCP Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 04:46:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_bf28e224-771d-4c72-9c61-b81d2647ffcc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a call for review of the individual submission "RADIUS over TCP". The document is available for review here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 This review will last until November 19, 2008. Please respond to the list as to whether you support adoption of this document as a RADEXT WG work item. If you have any issues with the document, please email them to the list in the RADEXT WG Issues format, described here: http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD Join me --_bf28e224-771d-4c72-9c61-b81d2647ffcc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> This is a call for review of the individual submission "RADIUS over TCP". <br>The document is available for review here:<br>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00<br><br>This review will last until November 19, 2008. Please respond to the list as to whether you<br>support adoption of this document as a RADEXT WG work item. If you have any issues with<br>the document, please email them to the list in the RADEXT WG Issues format, described here:<br>http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/<br><br><table style="border-top: 1px solid black; font-weight: bold; font-family: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif;"><tbody><tr><td><a href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood" target="_blank" style="font-size: 9pt; color: rgb(1, 132, 203); text-decoration: none;"><img style="border-style: none;" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/pr01/ltr/i_charity.gif" alt="i'm"> EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<br><span style="padding: 0px 24px; font-size: 8pt; color: rgb(63, 181, 85); text-decoration: underline;">Join me</span></a></td></tr></tbody></table></body> </html> --_bf28e224-771d-4c72-9c61-b81d2647ffcc_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:08:43 +0000 Message-ID: <49103B32.9050506@uninett.no> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:08:18 +0100 From: Stig Venaas <stig.venaas@uninett.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081007) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: RADEXT WG Last Call on Status-Server Document Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bernard Aboba wrote: > This is an announcement of RADEXT WG last call on the document > "Use of Status-Server Packets in the RADIUS Protocol", prior to sending > this document on to the IESG for publication as an Informational > RFC. The document is available for inspection here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02__ > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02> > > RADEXT WG last call will complete on November 25, 2008. Please > send review comments to the RADEXT WG mailing list > (radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format described on the RADEXT > Issues List (http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT ). If you > have no comments, but believe the document should be progressed, > please also send a note to the list to this effect. I've found some issues that I just reported in two separate mails. Once those are addressed I support progressing the document. FWIW I've also implemented it based on this draft, and successfully tested with other implementations. Stig -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:05:51 +0000 Message-ID: <49103A73.8080806@uninett.no> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:05:07 +0100 From: Stig Venaas <stig.venaas@uninett.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081007) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: RADEXT WG Last Call on Status-Server Document Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Submitter name: Stig Venaas Submitter email address: stig.venaas@uninett.no Date first submitted: November 4, 2008 Document: Status Server Comment type: E Priority: S Section: Various Rationale/Explanation of issue: I've read carefully through draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02 and found several editorial issues. In most places (but not all) the draft uses the term "Status-Server packet" or just "packet". Wouldn't it be better to replace "packet" with "message"? Especially since it's not limited to UDP transport. "it's" should be replaced with "its" throughout (genitive). TOC formatting is slightly broken (2.3.1/2.3.2). Section 2.3.2 has no title (missing both in TOC and body). In 2.2: A similar solution for the problem of querying server status may be for a NAS to send specially formed Accounting-Request packets to a RADIUS servers authentication port. The NAS can then look for a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ server's accounting In 3: Note that when a server responds to a Status-Server request, it MUST NOTE send more than one response packet. s/NOTE/NOT/ In 4.2: The server MAY prioritize the handling Status-Server queries over the Insert "of" ^^^^^ The server MAY decide to not respond to a Status-Server, depending on Insert "packet" or "message" ^^^^^^^ In 4.3: unresponsive, this change would enable the NAS to start packets to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ start sending packets to that RADIUS server again. The NAS MAY Remove " start packets to". In 4.6: In the worst case, failures in routing for Realm A may affect users Realm B. For example, if Proxy Server P can reach Realm B but not ^^^^^ Insert "of" In this situation, if all participants impement Status-Server as s/impement/implement/ ^^^^^^^^^^ In 6: The following table provide a guide to which attributes may be found s/provide/provides/ ^^^^^^^^^ Stig -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:50:17 +0000 Message-ID: <491028A4.7030708@uninett.no> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:49:08 +0100 From: Stig Venaas <stig.venaas@uninett.no> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081007) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: RADEXT WG Last Call on Status-Server Document Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Submitter name: Stig Venaas Submitter email address: stig.venaas@uninett.no Date first submitted: November 4, 2008 Document: Status Server Comment type: T Priority: 1 Section: 2.3.2 Rationale/Explanation of issue: I think clients should allow Access-Accept responses to status-server messages sent to the accounting port. Even if it's not the expected message, it shows that the server is alive. Also, towards the end of section 4.2 the draft says: Some server implementations accept both Access-Request and Accounting-Request packets on the same port, and do not distinguish between "authentication only" ports, and "accounting only" ports. Those implementations SHOULD reply to Status-Server packets with an Access-Accept packet. Due to this, I think the text in 2.3.2 is too strict: The Status-Server packet MUST contain a Message-Authenticator attribute for security. The response (if any) to a Status-Server packet sent to an accounting port MUST be an Accounting-Response packet. The list of attributes that are permitted in the Accounting- Response packet is given in the Table of Attributes in Section 6, below. I think the second MUST should be a SHOULD. Or at the very least, in section 4.1 where it talks about clients being liberal at what they accept. Add a note that they SHOULD accept this. Stig -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:21:04 +0000 Message-ID: <490FF7B8.4010304@restena.lu> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 08:20:24 +0100 From: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080922) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net> CC: 'Bernard Aboba' <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Review Requested: draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, > Just for the record, I made no such claim: I stated that the issues > were resolved to my satisfaction. Certain elements of one of the > issues I disputed, but since the owner thereof hasn't bothered to > respond to my comments in over a month, I unilaterally marked it as > resolved. It is possible (likely?) that the owner will now respond, > helping to delay publication further (inadvertently, no doubt). > I hope you weren't thinking of me. Going through my list of comments, the majority of items has been taken care of, with some exceptions. Breakdown below: - TLV encoding and M flag: not resolved. Discussion on the list resolved in that we should make sure also morons are forced to split attributes correctly (choice of words property of the original commenter). Proposed text from Alan DeKok was: "The More Flag MUST NOT be set if the Length is less than 255." I suggest to include that line. - TLV encoding rules: not resolved. I suggest adding two words to the sentence in question: "The next octet is the Ext-Len field, representing the length of the entire TLV *in octets*, including ..." - figure 3: resolved - figure 4, other encodings possible: not resolved. I suggest adding "Note that this encoding is only one out of several possibilities since there is no strict order in attribute marshalling." - figure 4, diagram: mostly resolved, one thing missed: Integer c of value 0x12345678 is still depicted in the Value field as 0x12 0x34 0x78 0x56 (twist in the last two segments) - nitbit in intro: resolved - nitbit in first example: resolved - security considerations: resolved *** New issues with this -05 draft: *** - figure 3: Ext-Type (cont) is listed as "(0x00" while it is actually "(0x01)". Greetings, Stefan Winter > > we are requesting that individuals who filed those issues read the > current document, and send email to the list indicating whether their > issue is resolved. > > I apparently "own" Issue 272 although it was you, I believe, who > brought it up initially. I withdraw it, since it's become quite > apparent that it's not really a problem at all (except, perhaps, for > those poor souls who actually try to _use_ Extended Attributes). Oh, > well⦠> > > > The RADEXT WG Issues list is available here: > http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ > <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/> > > The latest version of the Extended Attributes document can be found here: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05 > > The list of previously opened issues is as follows: > > > *Extended Attributes* > > *Issue Number* > > > > *Status* > > > > *Type* > > > > *Description* > > > > *Owner* > > Issue 225 > > > > Pending > > > > Technical > > > > Review > <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue%20225> > > > > Alan DeKok <mailto:aland@deployingradius.com> > > Issue 250 > > > > Pending > > > > Technical > > > > Comments > <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue%20250> > > > > Greg Weber <mailto:gdweber@gmail.com> > > Issue 251 > > > > Pending > > > > Technical > > > > Review > <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue%20251> > > > > Bernard Aboba <mailto:Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com> > > Issue 272 > > > > Pending > > > > Technical > > > > No overall type in Extended Attributes > <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue%20272> > > > > Glen Zorn <mailto:glenzorn@comcast.net> > > Issue 278 > > > > Pending > > > > Technical > > > > Comments > <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue%20278> > > > > Alan DeKok <mailto:aland@deployingradius.com> > > Issue 279 > > > > No Discussion > > > > Technical > > > > Comments > <http://www.drizzle.com/%7Eaboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue%20279> > > > > Stefan Winter <mailto:stefan.winter@restena.lu> > > > > > From: glenzorn@comcast.net > > To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org > > CC: glenzorn@comcast.net > > Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt > > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0800 > > > > All known issues are resolved to my satisfaction but YMMV; complaints > to me. > > ;-) > -- Stefan WINTER Ingenieur de Recherche Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg Tel: +352 424409 1 Fax: +352 422473 -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:42:51 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Cc: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: Review Requested: draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 21:42:03 -0800 Message-ID: <011a01c93e40$118afc00$34a0f400$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_011B_01C93DFD.0367BC00" Thread-Index: Ack+OWoMmUg3MpwLRNWUlLFAD/gymQABnHOA Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_011B_01C93DFD.0367BC00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:51 PM To: Glen Zorn Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: Review Requested: draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Glen Zorn said: "I apparently "own" Issue 272 although it was you, I believe, who brought it up initially." Here is a link to your original post on the subject: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2008/msg00458.html Since you raised it, it was assigned to you. I withdraw it, since it's become quite apparent that it's not really a problem at all (except, perhaps, for those poor souls who actually try to _use_ Extended Attributes). Oh, well. Unless anyone raises an objection on the list, I'll mark Issue 272 as resolved. Abandoned might be a better term. "It is possible (likely?) that the owner will now respond, helping to delay publication further (inadvertently, no doubt)." Given the document's relatively modest size (13 pages) and scope, if you can turn the remaining feedback around quickly, my expectation would be that it will take at most one more WG last call before the document is ready to go to IESG. As a result, most of the remaining "delays" in publication are likely to come from the IESG, not from the WG. ------=_NextPart_000_011B_01C93DFD.0367BC00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"Arial Black"; panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p {mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} span.EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'> <div> <div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Bernard Aboba<br> <b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 03, 2008 8:51 PM<br> <b>To:</b> Glen Zorn<br> <b>Cc:</b> radiusext@ops.ietf.org<br> <b>Subject:</b> RE: Review Requested: draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>Glen Zorn said:<br> <br> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Black","sans-serif"; color:#7030A0'>"I apparently "own" Issue 272 although it was you, I believe, who brought it up initially."<br> <br> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>Here is a link to your original post on the subject:<br> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2008/msg00458.html<br> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Black","sans-serif"; color:#7030A0'><br> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>Since you raised it, it was assigned to you. <br> <br> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Black","sans-serif"; color:#7030A0'>I withdraw it, since it's become quite apparent that it's not really a problem at all (except, perhaps, for those poor souls who actually try to _use_ Extended Attributes). Oh, well…</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><br> <br> Unless anyone raises an objection on the list, I'll mark Issue 272 as resolved. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:#FFC000'>Abandoned might be a better term…</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><br> <br> "</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Black","sans-serif"; color:#7030A0'>It is possible (likely?) that the owner will now respond, helping to delay publication further (inadvertently, no doubt).</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>"<br> <br> Given the document's relatively modest size (13 pages) and scope, if you can turn the remaining feedback around quickly, my expectation would be that it will take at most one more WG last call before the document is ready to go to IESG. As a result, most of the remaining "delays" in publication are likely to come from the IESG, not from the WG. <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> </body> </html> ------=_NextPart_000_011B_01C93DFD.0367BC00-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:51:33 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W2792F4237975EB3E7FD36E931C0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_14b74d99-f032-449d-a1c9-5fc3ebe4dfee_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net> CC: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: Review Requested: draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:50:40 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_14b74d99-f032-449d-a1c9-5fc3ebe4dfee_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Glen Zorn said: "I apparently "own" Issue 272 although it was you, I believe, who brought it up initially." Here is a link to your original post on the subject: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2008/msg00458.html Since you raised it, it was assigned to you. I withdraw it, since it's become quite apparent that it's not really a problem at all (except, perhaps, for those poor souls who actually try to _use_ Extended Attributes). Oh, well Unless anyone raises an objection on the list, I'll mark Issue 272 as resolved. "It is possible (likely?) that the owner will now respond, helping to delay publication further (inadvertently, no doubt)." Given the document's relatively modest size (13 pages) and scope, if you can turn the remaining feedback around quickly, my expectation would be that it will take at most one more WG last call before the document is ready to go to IESG. As a result, most of the remaining "delays" in publication are likely to come from the IESG, not from the WG. --_14b74d99-f032-449d-a1c9-5fc3ebe4dfee_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> Glen Zorn said:<br><br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Arial Black','sans-serif'; color: rgb(112, 48, 160);">"I apparently "own" Issue 272 although it was you, I believe, who brought it up initially."<br> <br></span>Here is a link to your original post on the subject:<br>http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2008/msg00458.html<br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Arial Black','sans-serif'; color: rgb(112, 48, 160);"><br></span>Since you raised it, it was assigned to you. <br><br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Arial Black','sans-serif'; color: rgb(112, 48, 160);">I withdraw it, since it's become quite apparent that it's not really a problem at all </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Arial Black','sans-serif'; color: rgb(112, 48, 160);">(except, perhaps, for those poor souls who actually try to _use_ Extended Attributes). Oh, well </span><br> <br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Arial Black','sans-serif'; color: rgb(112, 48, 160);"></span>Unless anyone raises an objection on the list, I'll mark Issue 272 as resolved. <br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Arial Black','sans-serif'; color: rgb(112, 48, 160);"></span><br>"<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Arial Black','sans-serif'; color: rgb(112, 48, 160);">It is possible (likely?) that the owner will now respond, helping to delay publication further (inadvertently, no doubt).</span>"<br><br>Given the document's relatively modest size (13 pages) and scope, if you can turn the remaining feedback around quickly, my expectation would be that it will take at most one more WG last call before the document is ready to go to IESG. As a result, most of the remaining "delays" in publication are likely to come from the IESG, not from the WG. <br></body> </html> --_14b74d99-f032-449d-a1c9-5fc3ebe4dfee_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:22:17 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Cc: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: Review Requested: draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:19:34 -0800 Message-ID: <00fc01c93e1b$6612ff90$3238feb0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00FD_01C93DD8.57EFBF90" Thread-Index: Ack+EarwD4M04wYsRWeyohP3stZ4RQACA4dQ Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00FD_01C93DD8.57EFBF90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Currently the RADEXT WG Issues tracker lists 6 open issues relating to the RADIUS Extended Attributes document. Given that the editor now claims to have resolved open Issues from RADEXT WG last call, Just for the record, I made no such claim: I stated that the issues were resolved to my satisfaction. Certain elements of one of the issues I disputed, but since the owner thereof hasn't bothered to respond to my comments in over a month, I unilaterally marked it as resolved. It is possible (likely?) that the owner will now respond, helping to delay publication further (inadvertently, no doubt). we are requesting that individuals who filed those issues read the current document, and send email to the list indicating whether their issue is resolved. I apparently "own" Issue 272 although it was you, I believe, who brought it up initially. I withdraw it, since it's become quite apparent that it's not really a problem at all (except, perhaps, for those poor souls who actually try to _use_ Extended Attributes). Oh, well. The RADEXT WG Issues list is available here: http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ The latest version of the Extended Attributes document can be found here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05 The list of previously opened issues is as follows: Extended Attributes Issue Number Status Type Description Owner Issue 225 Pending Technical <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 225> Review <mailto:aland@deployingradius.com> Alan DeKok Issue 250 Pending Technical <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 250> Comments <mailto:gdweber@gmail.com> Greg Weber Issue 251 Pending Technical <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 251> Review <mailto:Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com> Bernard Aboba Issue 272 Pending Technical <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 272> No overall type in Extended Attributes <mailto:glenzorn@comcast.net> Glen Zorn Issue 278 Pending Technical <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 278> Comments <mailto:aland@deployingradius.com> Alan DeKok Issue 279 No Discussion Technical <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 279> Comments <mailto:stefan.winter@restena.lu> Stefan Winter > From: glenzorn@comcast.net > To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org > CC: glenzorn@comcast.net > Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0800 > > All known issues are resolved to my satisfaction but YMMV; complaints to me. > ;-) ------=_NextPart_000_00FD_01C93DD8.57EFBF90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"Arial Black"; panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p {mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} span.EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>Currently the RADEXT WG Issues tracker lists 6 open issues relating to the RADIUS Extended Attributes document. Given that the editor now claims to have resolved open Issues from RADEXT WG last call, <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Black","sans-serif"; color:#7030A0'>Just for the record, I made no such claim: I stated that the issues were resolved to my satisfaction. Certain elements of one of the issues I disputed, but since the owner thereof hasn't bothered to respond to my comments in over a month, I unilaterally marked it as resolved. It is possible (likely?) that the owner will now respond, helping to delay publication further (inadvertently, no doubt).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>we are requesting that individuals who filed those issues read the current document, and send email to the list indicating whether their issue is resolved. <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Black","sans-serif"; color:#7030A0'>I apparently "own" Issue 272 although it was you, I believe, who brought it up initially. I withdraw it, since it's become quite apparent that it's not really a problem at all (except, perhaps, for those poor souls who actually try to _use_ Extended Attributes). Oh, well…<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><br> <br> The RADEXT WG Issues list is available here:<br> <a href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/">http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/</a><br> <br> The latest version of the Extended Attributes document can be found here:<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05</a><br> <br> The list of previously opened issues is as follows:<br> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellpadding=0 width=761 style='width:570.75pt' id=table62> <tr style='height:25.5pt'> <td width=117 style='width:87.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:25.5pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><strong><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Extended Attributes</span></strong> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Issue Number</span></b><o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=146 style='width:109.5pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:25.5pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Status</span></b><o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=84 style='width:63.0pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height:25.5pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Type</span></b><o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=272 style='width:204.0pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:25.5pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Description</span></b><o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=112 style='width:84.0pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height: 25.5pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Owner</span></b><o:p></o:p></p> </td> </tr> <tr style='height:38.25pt'> <td width=117 style='width:87.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Issue 225<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=146 style='width:109.5pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Pending<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=73 style='width:54.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height: 38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Technical<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=277 style='width:207.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 225"><span style='color:#0066CC'>Review</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=117 style='width:87.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:aland@deployingradius.com"><span style='color:#0066CC'>Alan DeKok</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> </tr> <tr style='height:45.0pt'> <td width=117 style='width:87.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:45.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Issue 250<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=146 style='width:109.5pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:45.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Pending<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=84 style='width:63.0pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height:45.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Technical<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=272 style='width:204.0pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:45.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 250"><span style='color:#0066CC'>Comments</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=112 style='width:84.0pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height: 45.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:gdweber@gmail.com"><span style='color: #0066CC'>Greg Weber</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> </tr> <tr style='height:46.5pt'> <td width=117 style='width:87.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:46.5pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Issue 251<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=146 style='width:109.5pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:46.5pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Pending<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=84 style='width:63.0pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height:46.5pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Technical<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=272 style='width:204.0pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:46.5pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 251"><span style='color:#0066CC'>Review</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=112 style='width:84.0pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height: 46.5pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com"><span style='color:#0066CC'>Bernard Aboba</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> </tr> <tr style='height:38.25pt'> <td width=117 style='width:87.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Issue 272<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=146 style='width:109.5pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Pending<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=73 style='width:54.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height: 38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Technical<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=277 style='width:207.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 272"><span style='color:purple'>No overall type in Extended Attributes</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=117 style='width:87.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:glenzorn@comcast.net"><span style='color:#0066CC'>Glen Zorn</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> </tr> <tr style='height:38.25pt'> <td width=117 style='width:87.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Issue 278<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=146 style='width:109.5pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Pending<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=73 style='width:54.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height: 38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Technical<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=277 style='width:207.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 278"><span style='color:#0066CC'>Comments</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=117 style='width:87.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:aland@deployingradius.com"><span style='color:#0066CC'>Alan DeKok</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> </tr> <tr style='height:38.25pt'> <td width=117 style='width:87.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Issue 279<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=146 style='width:109.5pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>No Discussion<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=73 style='width:54.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;height: 38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal>Technical<o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=277 style='width:207.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 279"><span style='color:purple'>Comments</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> <td width=117 style='width:87.75pt;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt; height:38.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:stefan.winter@restena.lu"><span style='color:#0066CC'>Stefan Winter</span></a><o:p></o:p></p> </td> </tr> </table> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <br> <br> > From: glenzorn@comcast.net<br> > To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org<br> > CC: glenzorn@comcast.net<br> > Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt <br> > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0800<br> > <br> > All known issues are resolved to my satisfaction but YMMV; complaints to me.<br> > ;-)<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> </body> </html> ------=_NextPart_000_00FD_01C93DD8.57EFBF90-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:12:53 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W14C27139962AA11AE59D4F931C0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_43bde25b-9ff4-4365-b255-e4c550994455_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Call for Presentations Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:12:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_43bde25b-9ff4-4365-b255-e4c550994455_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a call for presentations for the IETF 73 meeting of the RADEXT WG. If you currently have time on the agenda, please send your presentations to Dave Nelson and myself ASAP. EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me --_43bde25b-9ff4-4365-b255-e4c550994455_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> This is a call for presentations for the IETF 73 meeting of the RADEXT WG. <BR> <BR> If you currently have time on the agenda, please send your presentations to Dave Nelson and myself ASAP. <BR><BR><BR> <TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD><A style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #0184cb; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood" target=_blank><IMG style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" alt="i'm" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/pr01/ltr/i_charity.gif"> EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<BR><SPAN style="PADDING-RIGHT: 24px; PADDING-LEFT: 24px; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; COLOR: #3fb555; PADDING-TOP: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Join me</SPAN></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></body> </html> --_43bde25b-9ff4-4365-b255-e4c550994455_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:26:18 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W13E3A097C4CD1243FD85E9931C0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_523ce502-b564-4371-a0ab-2c7912eaea00_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RADEXT WG Agenda at IETF 73 - Take Five Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:25:50 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_523ce502-b564-4371-a0ab-2c7912eaea00_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. Currently the Agenda is as follows: 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries (10 minutes) Blue Sheets Note Takers Jabber Scribe Agenda bashing Document Status Documents completing IETF Last Call (20 minutes) 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05 Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call (40 minutes) 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, TBD (10 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05 10:00 AM - 10:10 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02 Pre-Working Group Work Item Review (30 minutes) 10:10 AM - 10:20 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 10:20 AM - 10:25 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (5 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02 10:25 AM - 10:30 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (5 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09 10:30 AM - 10:40 AM , Transmitting Confidential Data in RADIUS, Joe Salowey (10 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zorn-radius-encattr-15Internationalization (20 minutes) 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM i8n Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc428210:50 AM - 11:00 AM Discussion IPv6 (20 minutes)11:00 AM - 11:10 AM Prefix Authorization, Behcet Sarikaya (10 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-0111:10 AM - 11:20 AM DHCPv6 Attributes, Benoit Lourdelet (10 minutes)http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02Summary & Wrapup11:20 AM - 11:30 AM, Chairs EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me --_523ce502-b564-4371-a0ab-2c7912eaea00_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. <BR>Currently the Agenda is as follows:<BR> <BR>9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries (10 minutes)<BR> Blue Sheets<BR> Note Takers<BR> Jabber Scribe<BR> Agenda bashing<BR> Document Status<BR> <BR>Documents completing IETF Last Call (20 minutes)<BR> <BR>9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06" target=_blank rel=nofollow><U><FONT color=#0066cc>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06</FONT></U></A><BR> <BR>9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05" target=_blank rel=nofollow><U><FONT color=#0066cc>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05</FONT></U></A><BR> <BR>Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call (40 minutes)<BR> <BR> 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" target=_blank rel=nofollow><U><FONT color=#800080>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02</FONT></U></A><BR> <BR>9:40 AM - 9:50 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02" target=_blank rel=nofollow><U><FONT color=#0066cc>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02</FONT></U></A><BR> <BR> 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, TBD (10 minutes)<BR><FONT color=#444444><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05</A></FONT><BR> <BR> 10:00 AM - 10:10 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02" target=_blank rel=nofollow><U><FONT color=#0066cc>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02</FONT></U></A><BR> <BR>Pre-Working Group Work Item Review (30 minutes)<BR> <BR>10:10 AM - 10:20 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00</A><BR><BR> 10:20 AM - 10:25 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (5 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target=_blank rel=nofollow><U><FONT color=#0066cc>http://tools.ietf.org/html/</FONT></U></A><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target=_blank rel=nofollow><U><FONT color=#0066cc>draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02</FONT></U></A><BR> <BR>10:25 AM - 10:30 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (5 minutes)<BR>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09<BR> <BR>10:30 AM - 10:40 AM , Transmitting Confidential Data in RADIUS, Joe Salowey (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zorn-radius-encattr-15">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zorn-radius-encattr-15</A><BR><BR>Internationalization (20 minutes)<BR> <BR>10:40 AM - 10:50 AM i8n Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282" target=_blank rel=nofollow><U><FONT color=#0066cc>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282</FONT></U></A><BR><BR>10:50 AM - 11:00 AM Discussion<BR> <BR>IPv6 (20 minutes)<BR><BR>11:00 AM - 11:10 AM Prefix Authorization, Behcet Sarikaya (10 minutes)<BR>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-01<BR><BR>11:10 AM - 11:20 AM DHCPv6 Attributes, Benoit Lourdelet (10 minutes)<BR>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02<BR><BR>Summary & Wrapup<BR><BR>11:20 AM - 11:30 AM, Chairs <BR><BR><BR><BR> <TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD><A style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #0184cb; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood" target=_blank><IMG style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" alt="i'm" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/pr01/ltr/i_charity.gif"> EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<BR><SPAN style="PADDING-RIGHT: 24px; PADDING-LEFT: 24px; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; COLOR: #3fb555; PADDING-TOP: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Join me</SPAN></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></body> </html> --_523ce502-b564-4371-a0ab-2c7912eaea00_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:11:29 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W25626412F00401065A63A9931C0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_e7e1610d-5647-413d-94fc-f25fc30c686f_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RADEXT WG Last Call on Status-Server Document Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:10:56 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_e7e1610d-5647-413d-94fc-f25fc30c686f_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is an announcement of RADEXT WG last call on the document"Use of Status-Server Packets in the RADIUS Protocol", prior to sendingthis document on to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC. The document is available for inspection here:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02RADEXT WG last call will complete on November 25, 2008. Pleasesend review comments to the RADEXT WG mailing list(radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format described on the RADEXTIssues List (http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT ). If youhave no comments, but believe the document should be progressed,please also send a note to the list to this effect. EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me --_e7e1610d-5647-413d-94fc-f25fc30c686f_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD> This is an announcement of RADEXT WG last call on the document<BR>"Use of Status-Server Packets in the RADIUS Protocol", prior to sending<BR>this document on to the IESG for publication as an Informational <BR> RFC. The document is available for inspection here:<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02</A><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02"><U><FONT color=#800080></A></FONT></U><BR><BR>RADEXT WG last call will complete on November 25, 2008. Please<BR>send review comments to the RADEXT WG mailing list<BR>(radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format described on the RADEXT<BR>Issues List (http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT ). If you<BR>have no comments, but believe the document should be progressed,<BR>please also send a note to the list to this effect. <BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR> <TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD><A style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #0184cb; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood" target=_blank><IMG style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" alt="i'm" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/pr01/ltr/i_charity.gif"> EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<BR><SPAN style="PADDING-RIGHT: 24px; PADDING-LEFT: 24px; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; COLOR: #3fb555; PADDING-TOP: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Join me</SPAN></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></body> </html> --_e7e1610d-5647-413d-94fc-f25fc30c686f_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:07:21 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W33AA23CA02A90631951432931C0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_8c0db615-245f-478d-8546-b2ca9622d9f8_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Review Requested: draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:06:11 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_8c0db615-245f-478d-8546-b2ca9622d9f8_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Currently the RADEXT WG Issues tracker lists 6 open issues relating to the RADIUS Extended Attributes document. Given that the editor now claims to have resolved open Issues from RADEXT WG last call, we are requesting that individuals who filed those issues read the current document, and send email to the list indicating whether their issue is resolved. The RADEXT WG Issues list is available here: http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ The latest version of the Extended Attributes document can be found here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05 The list of previously opened issues is as follows: Extended Attributes Issue Number Status Type Description Owner Issue 225 Pending Technical Review Alan DeKok Issue 250 Pending Technical Comments Greg Weber Issue 251 Pending Technical Review Bernard Aboba Issue 272 Pending Technical No overall type in Extended Attributes Glen Zorn Issue 278 Pending Technical Comments Alan DeKok Issue 279 No Discussion Technical Comments Stefan Winter > From: glenzorn@comcast.net> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org> CC: glenzorn@comcast.net> Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0800> > All known issues are resolved to my satisfaction but YMMV; complaints to me.> ;-) --_8c0db615-245f-478d-8546-b2ca9622d9f8_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> Currently the RADEXT WG Issues tracker lists 6 open issues relating to the RADIUS Extended Attributes document. Given that the editor now claims to have resolved open Issues from RADEXT WG last call, we are requesting that individuals who filed those issues read the current document, and send email to the list indicating whether their issue is resolved. <BR> <BR> The RADEXT WG Issues list is available here:<BR> <A href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/">http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/</A><BR> <BR> The latest version of the Extended Attributes document can be found here:<BR> <A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05</A><BR> <BR> The list of previously opened issues is as follows:<BR> <BR> <TABLE id=table62 height=1 width=761 border=1> <TBODY> <TR> <TD width=117 height=34><FONT size=4><STRONG>Extended Attributes</STRONG></FONT> <P><B><FONT size=4>Issue Number</FONT></B><BR></TD> <TD width=146 height=34><B><FONT size=4>Status</FONT></B></TD> <TD width=84 height=34><FONT size=4><B>Type</B></FONT></TD> <TD width=272 height=34><B><FONT size=4>Description</FONT></B></TD> <TD width=112 height=34><B><FONT size=4>Owner</FONT></B></TD></TR> <TR> <TD width=117 height=62>Issue 225</TD> <TD width=146 height=34>Pending</TD> <TD width=73 height=62>Technical</TD> <TD width=277 height=62><A href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 225"><FONT color=#0066cc><U>Review</U></FONT></A></TD> <TD width=117 height=51><A href="mailto:aland@deployingradius.com"><U><FONT color=#0066cc>Alan DeKok</FONT></U></A></TD></TR> <TR> <TD style="HEIGHT: 60px" width=117>Issue 250</TD> <TD style="HEIGHT: 60px" width=146>Pending</TD> <TD style="HEIGHT: 60px" width=84>Technical</TD> <TD style="HEIGHT: 60px" width=272><A href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 250"><FONT color=#0066cc><U>Comments</U></FONT></A></TD> <TD style="HEIGHT: 60px" width=112><A href="mailto:gdweber@gmail.com"><U><FONT color=#0066cc>Greg Weber</FONT></U></A></TD></TR> <TR> <TD style="HEIGHT: 62px" width=117>Issue 251</TD> <TD style="HEIGHT: 62px" width=146>Pending</TD> <TD style="HEIGHT: 62px" width=84>Technical</TD> <TD style="HEIGHT: 62px" width=272><A href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 251"><FONT color=#0066cc><U>Review</U></FONT></A></TD> <TD style="HEIGHT: 62px" width=112><A href="mailto:Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com"><U><FONT color=#0066cc>Bernard Aboba</FONT></U></A></TD></TR> <TR> <TD width=117 height=62>Issue 272</TD> <TD width=146 height=34>Pending</TD> <TD width=73 height=62>Technical</TD> <TD width=277 height=62><A href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 272"><FONT color=#800080><U>No overall type in Extended Attributes</U></FONT></A></TD> <TD width=117 height=51><A href="mailto:glenzorn@comcast.net"><U><FONT color=#0066cc>Glen Zorn</FONT></U></A></TD></TR> <TR> <TD width=117 height=62>Issue 278</TD> <TD width=146 height=34>Pending</TD> <TD width=73 height=62>Technical</TD> <TD width=277 height=62><A href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 278"><FONT color=#0066cc><U>Comments</U></FONT></A></TD> <TD width=117 height=51><A href="mailto:aland@deployingradius.com"><U><FONT color=#0066cc>Alan DeKok</FONT></U></A></TD></TR> <TR> <TD width=117 height=62>Issue 279</TD> <TD width=146 height=34>No Discussion</TD> <TD width=73 height=62>Technical</TD> <TD width=277 height=62><A href="http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues2.html#Issue 279"><FONT color=#800080><U>Comments</U></FONT></A></TD> <TD width=117 height=51><A href="mailto:stefan.winter@restena.lu"><U><FONT color=#0066cc>Stefan Winter</FONT></U></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></P> <BR> <BR> > From: glenzorn@comcast.net<BR>> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org<BR>> CC: glenzorn@comcast.net<BR>> Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt <BR>> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0800<BR>> <BR>> All known issues are resolved to my satisfaction but YMMV; complaints to me.<BR>> ;-)<BR><BR></body> </html> --_8c0db615-245f-478d-8546-b2ca9622d9f8_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:01:00 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Cc: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Three Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:00:18 -0800 Message-ID: <012901c93dee$cc9c83d0$65d58b70$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_012A_01C93DAB.BE7943D0" Thread-Index: Ack9l/U0kGxPtBthQaC7HJrG3axEhwAVphsg Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_012A_01C93DAB.BE7943D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You might want to remove the Extended Attributes draft (or at least the presentation) from the agenda since none of the authors will be at the meeting. From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:24 AM To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Three Currently the Agenda is as follows: 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries (10 minutes) Blue Sheets Note Takers Jabber Scribe Agenda bashing Document Status Documents completing IETF Last Call (20 minutes) 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05 Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call (40 minutes) 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02 10:00 AM - 10:10 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04 RADEXT WG Work Items (10 minutes) 10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 Pre-Working Group Work Item Review (10 minutes) 10:30 AM - 10:35 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (5 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/ <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02> draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02> 10:35 AM - 10:40 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (5 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09.txt Internationalization (20 minutes) 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282 10:50 AM - 11 AM Discussion IPv6 (20 minutes) 11:00 AM - 11:10 AM Prefix Authorization, Behcet Sarikaya (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-00 11:10 AM - 11:20 AM DHCPv6 Attributes, Benoit Lourdelet (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02 Summary & Wrapup 11:20 AM - 11:30 AM, Chairs ------=_NextPart_000_012A_01C93DAB.BE7943D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"Segoe UI"; panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;} @font-face {font-family:"Arial Black"; panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p {mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} span.EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Black","sans-serif"; color:#7030A0'>You might want to remove the Extended Attributes draft (or at least the presentation) from the agenda since none of the authors will be at the meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'> <div> <div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Bernard Aboba<br> <b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 03, 2008 12:24 AM<br> <b>To:</b> radiusext@ops.ietf.org<br> <b>Subject:</b> IETF 73 Agenda - Take Three<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><br> <br> <br> Currently the Agenda is as follows:<br> <br> 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries (10 minutes)<br> Blue Sheets<br> Note Takers<br> Jabber Scribe<br> Agenda bashing<br> Document Status<br> <br> Documents completing IETF Last Call (20 minutes)<br> <br> 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06</a><br> <br> 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05</a><br> <br> Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call (40 minutes)<br> <br> 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02</a><br> <br> 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02</a><br> <br> 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02</a><br> <br> 10:00 AM - 10:10 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04</a><br> <br> RADEXT WG Work Items (10 minutes)<br> <br> 10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00<br> <br> Pre-Working Group Work Item Review (10 minutes)<br> <br> 10:30 AM - 10:35 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (5 minutes)<br> <span style='color:#0068CF'><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/</a></span><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target="_blank">draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02</a><br> <br> 10:35 AM - 10:40 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (5 minutes)<br> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09.txt<br> <br> Internationalization (20 minutes)<br> <br> 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282</a><br> <br> 10:50 AM - 11 AM Discussion<br> <br> IPv6 (20 minutes)<br> <br> 11:00 AM - 11:10 AM Prefix Authorization, Behcet Sarikaya (10 minutes)<br> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-00<br> <br> 11:10 AM - 11:20 AM DHCPv6 Attributes, Benoit Lourdelet (10 minutes)<br> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02<br> <br> Summary & Wrapup<br> <br> 11:20 AM - 11:30 AM, Chairs <br> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellpadding=0 style='border:none; border-top:solid black 1.0pt'> <tr> <td style='border:none;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'></td> </tr> </table> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> </div> </body> </html> ------=_NextPart_000_012A_01C93DAB.BE7943D0-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:30:40 +0000 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081103183001.86A843A6A9B@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:30:01 -0800 (PST) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the RADIUS EXTensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Use of Status-Server Packets in the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol Author(s) : A. DeKok Filename : draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2008-11-3 RFC 2865 defines a Status-Server code for use in RADIUS, but labels it as "Experimental" without further discussion. This document describes a practical use for the Status-Server packet code, which is to let clients query the status of a RADIUS server. These queries, and responses (if any) enable the client to make more informed decisions. The result is a more stable, and more robust RADIUS architecture. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-3101801.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:44:57 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W215967797411D3245090C3931D0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_f946c587-6585-40e9-9d1f-4d70d1c8c4fe_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RADEXT WG IETF 73 Agenda - Take Four Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:44:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_f946c587-6585-40e9-9d1f-4d70d1c8c4fe_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. Currently the Agenda is as follows: 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries (10 minutes) Blue Sheets Note Takers Jabber Scribe Agenda bashing Document Status Documents completing IETF Last Call (20 minutes) 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05 Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call (40 minutes) 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02 10:00 AM - 10:10 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04 RADEXT WG Work Items (10 minutes) 10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 Pre-Working Group Work Item Review (10 minutes) 10:30 AM - 10:35 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (5 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02 10:35 AM - 10:40 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (5 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09 Internationalization (20 minutes) 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282 10:50 AM - 11 AM Discussion IPv6 (20 minutes) 11:00 AM - 11:10 AM Prefix Authorization, Behcet Sarikaya (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-01 11:10 AM - 11:20 AM DHCPv6 Attributes, Benoit Lourdelet (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02 Summary & Wrapup 11:20 AM - 11:30 AM, Chairs --_f946c587-6585-40e9-9d1f-4d70d1c8c4fe_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. <br> Currently the Agenda is as follows:<br> <br> 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries (10 minutes)<br> Blue Sheets<br> Note Takers<br> Jabber Scribe<br> Agenda bashing<br> Document Status<br> <br> Documents completing IETF Last Call (20 minutes)<br> <br> 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06</a><br> <br> 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05</a><br> <br> Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call (40 minutes)<br><br>9:30 AM - 9:40 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02</a><br> <br> 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02</a><br><br>9:50 AM - 10:00 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02</a><br><br>10:00 AM - 10:10 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04</a><br> <br>RADEXT WG Work Items (10 minutes)<br> <br>10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00<br> <br> Pre-Working Group Work Item Review (10 minutes)<br> <br> 10:30 AM - 10:35 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (5 minutes)<br> <font color="#0068cf"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/</a></font><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target="_blank">draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02</a><br> <br> 10:35 AM - 10:40 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (5 minutes)<br>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09<br> <br> Internationalization (20 minutes)<br> <br> 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282</a><br><br>10:50 AM - 11 AM Discussion<br><br>IPv6 (20 minutes)<br><br>11:00 AM - 11:10 AM Prefix Authorization, Behcet Sarikaya (10 minutes)<br>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-01<br><br>11:10 AM - 11:20 AM DHCPv6 Attributes, Benoit Lourdelet (10 minutes)<br>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02<br><br>Summary & Wrapup<br><br>11:20 AM - 11:30 AM, Chairs <br><br><br><table style="border-top: 1px solid black; font-weight: bold; font-family: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif;"><tbody><tr><td><a href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood" target="_blank" style="font-size: 9pt; color: rgb(1, 132, 203); text-decoration: none;"><span style="padding: 0px 24px; font-size: 8pt; color: rgb(63, 181, 85); text-decoration: underline;"></span></a><br></td></tr></tbody></table></body> </html> --_f946c587-6585-40e9-9d1f-4d70d1c8c4fe_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:27:24 +0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=aNs176mUiwwtkZjs1z1lgvwNkyqxnwoqniPH8VslWfoc5zHiKrxCEv0g7tw3C/554/tZYPXoyMDRezo/Xeo/ezPNEDZIghE4bjiq/4q/hmmxgw9NxiR3lWJvayhzCh31BYskm9XqFlLLdIsZrlvSxV5ecXEAKnuiIZzhYtGRxJs=; Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 07:26:42 -0800 (PST) From: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org> Subject: Re: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Three To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-126567652-1225726002=:96663" Message-ID: <165198.96663.qm@web38804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --0-126567652-1225726002=:96663 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Bernard, Please reserve a slot for this draft. Kind regards, Behcet A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-01.txt has been successfuly submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization Revision: 01 Title: RADIUS Support for Prefix Authorization Creation_date: 2008-11-02 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 18 Abstract: This document specifies new attributes for supporting prefix authorization. Using RADIUS protocol, a client requests prefixes from a server; the client gives back the prefixes to the server; the client is responsible for renewing the prefixes when the lifetime expires. The RADIUS server can also renumber prefixes. RADIUS clients can be home agents in MIPv6 and NEMO scenario, local mobile anchors in Proxy MIPv6 scenario, or common access routers. The IETF Secretariat. ________________________________ From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Sent: Monday, November 3, 2008 2:23:42 AM Subject: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Three At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. Currently the Agenda is as follows: 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries (10 minutes) Blue Sheets Note Takers Jabber Scribe Agenda bashing Document Status Documents completing IETF Last Call (20 minutes) 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05 Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call (40 minutes) 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02 10:00 AM - 10:10 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04 RADEXT WG Work Items (10 minutes) 10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 Pre-Working Group Work Item Review (10 minutes) 10:30 AM - 10:35 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (5 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02 10:35 AM - 10:40 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (5 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09.txt Internationalization (20 minutes) 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282 10:50 AM - 11 AM Discussion IPv6 (20 minutes) 11:00 AM - 11:10 AM Prefix Authorization, Behcet Sarikaya (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-00 11:10 AM - 11:20 AM DHCPv6 Attributes, Benoit Lourdelet (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02 Summary & Wrapup 11:20 AM - 11:30 AM, Chairs --0-126567652-1225726002=:96663 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:14pt"><div>Hi Bernard,<br> Please reserve a slot for this draft.<br><br>Kind regards,<br><br>Behcet<br><br>A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-01.txt has been successfuly submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository.<br><br>Filename: draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization<br>Revision: 01<br>Title: RADIUS Support for Prefix <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(0, 102, 204); cursor: pointer;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1225725864_0">Authorization</span><br>Creation_date: 2008-11-02<br>WG ID: Independent Submission<br>Number_of_pages: 18<br><br>Abstract:<br>This document specifies new attributes for supporting prefix<br>authorization. Using RADIUS protocol, a client requests prefixes<br>from a server; the client gives back the prefixes to the server; the<br>client is responsible for renewing the prefixes when the lifetime<br>expires. The RADIUS server can also renumber prefixes. RADIUS<br>clients can be <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1225725864_1">home agents</span> in MIPv6 and NEMO scenario, local mobile<br>anchors in Proxy MIPv6 scenario, or common access routers.<br> <br><br><br>The IETF Secretariat.</div><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 14pt;"><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> radiusext@ops.ietf.org<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Monday, November 3, 2008 2:23:42 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> IETF 73 Agenda - Take Three<br></font><br> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} </style> <br> <style> .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}</style><br> <style> .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {</style>At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. <br> Currently the Agenda is as follows:<br> <br> 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries (10 minutes)<br> Blue Sheets<br> Note Takers<br> Jabber Scribe<br> Agenda bashing<br> Document Status<br> <br> Documents completing IETF Last Call (20 minutes)<br> <br> 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06</a><br> <br> 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05</a><br> <br> Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call (40 minutes)<br><br>9:30 AM - 9:40 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02</a><br> <br> 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes)<br> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02</a><br><br>9:50 AM - 10:00 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02</a><br><br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02"></a>10:00 AM - 10:10 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes)<br> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04</a><br> <br><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02"></a>RADEXT WG Work Items (10 minutes)<br> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02"></a><br>10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br><a target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00</a><br> <br> Pre-Working Group Work Item Review (10 minutes)<br> <br> 10:30 AM - 10:35 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (5 minutes)<br> <font color="#0068cf"><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02">http://tools.ietf.org/html/</a></font><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02">draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02</a><br> <br> 10:35 AM - 10:40 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (5 minutes)<br><a target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09.txt">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09.txt</a><br> <br> Internationalization (20 minutes)<br> <br> 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes)<br> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282</a><br><br>10:50 AM - 11 AM Discussion<br><br>IPv6 (20 minutes)<br><br>11:00 AM - 11:10 AM Prefix Authorization, Behcet Sarikaya (10 minutes)<br><a target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-00">http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-00</a><br><br>11:10 AM - 11:20 AM DHCPv6 Attributes, Benoit Lourdelet (10 minutes)<br><a target="_blank" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02</a><br><br>Summary & Wrapup<br><br>11:20 AM - 11:30 AM, Chairs <br> <br><table style="border-top: 1px solid black; font-weight: bold; font-family: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma;"><tbody><tr><td><a rel="nofollow" style="font-size: 9pt; color: rgb(1, 132, 203); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood"><span style="padding: 0px 24px; font-size: 8pt; color: rgb(63, 181, 85); text-decoration: underline;"></span></a><br></td></tr></tbody></table> </div></div></div><br> </body></html> --0-126567652-1225726002=:96663-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:35:29 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W10BCD1A578CC22E23BB8B931D0@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_4a7e93a4-1e7e-4ce3-abb8-7fe8e348e254_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Three Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 00:23:42 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_4a7e93a4-1e7e-4ce3-abb8-7fe8e348e254_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. Currently the Agenda is as follows: 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries (10 minutes) Blue Sheets Note Takers Jabber Scribe Agenda bashing Document Status Documents completing IETF Last Call (20 minutes) 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05 Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call (40 minutes) 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02 10:00 AM - 10:10 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04 RADEXT WG Work Items (10 minutes) 10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 Pre-Working Group Work Item Review (10 minutes) 10:30 AM - 10:35 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (5 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02 10:35 AM - 10:40 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (5 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09.txt Internationalization (20 minutes) 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282 10:50 AM - 11 AM Discussion IPv6 (20 minutes) 11:00 AM - 11:10 AM Prefix Authorization, Behcet Sarikaya (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-00 11:10 AM - 11:20 AM DHCPv6 Attributes, Benoit Lourdelet (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02 Summary & Wrapup 11:20 AM - 11:30 AM, Chairs --_4a7e93a4-1e7e-4ce3-abb8-7fe8e348e254_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> <br> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=unicode"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft SafeHTML"> <style> .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}</style><br> <style> .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {paddi</style>At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. <br> Currently the Agenda is as follows:<br> <br> 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries (10 minutes)<br> Blue Sheets<br> Note Takers<br> Jabber Scribe<br> Agenda bashing<br> Document Status<br> <br> Documents completing IETF Last Call (20 minutes)<br> <br> 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06</a><br> <br> 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05</a><br> <br> Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call (40 minutes)<br><br>9:30 AM - 9:40 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02</a><br> <br> 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02</a><br><br>9:50 AM - 10:00 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02</a><br><br><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" target="_blank"></a>10:00 AM - 10:10 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04</a><br> <br><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02" target="_blank"></a>RADEXT WG Work Items (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" target="_blank"></a><br>10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00<br> <br> Pre-Working Group Work Item Review (10 minutes)<br> <br> 10:30 AM - 10:35 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (5 minutes)<br> <font color="#0068cf"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/</a></font><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target="_blank">draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02</a><br> <br> 10:35 AM - 10:40 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (5 minutes)<br>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09.txt<br> <br> Internationalization (20 minutes)<br> <br> 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282</a><br><br>10:50 AM - 11 AM Discussion<br><br>IPv6 (20 minutes)<br><br>11:00 AM - 11:10 AM Prefix Authorization, Behcet Sarikaya (10 minutes)<br>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization-00<br><br>11:10 AM - 11:20 AM DHCPv6 Attributes, Benoit Lourdelet (10 minutes)<br>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02<br><br>Summary & Wrapup<br><br>11:20 AM - 11:30 AM, Chairs <br> <br><table style="border-top: 1px solid black; font-weight: bold; font-family: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif;"><tbody><tr><td><a style="font-size: 9pt; color: rgb(1, 132, 203); text-decoration: none;" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood" target="_blank"><span style="padding: 0px 24px; font-size: 8pt; color: rgb(63, 181, 85); text-decoration: underline;"></span></a><br></td></tr></tbody></table> </body> </html> --_4a7e93a4-1e7e-4ce3-abb8-7fe8e348e254_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:06:49 +0000 Message-ID: <490E9EDC.8010606@restena.lu> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:49:00 +0100 From: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080922) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> CC: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for IETF 73 Agenda Items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, > Could we also add the TCP transport draft? > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 Speaking of which: that draft is an individual submission. We have TCP transport on the charter, scheduled for Jan 09, and personally I think that this draft is well written and suited to be adopted as a wg draft, rather than an individual submission. I suggest we try to get a feeling in the room about whether to make this document a proper wg document. Greetings, Stefan Winter -- Stefan WINTER Ingenieur de Recherche Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg Tel: +352 424409 1 Fax: +352 422473 -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 01:29:45 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "'Glen Zorn'" <glenzorn@comcast.net> Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:21:26 -0800 Message-ID: <00f601c93d52$7ef81550$7ce83ff0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit thread-index: Ack9S41YohLII645Sz+7E3TBra18lwABsT6g Content-Language: en-us All known issues are resolved to my satisfaction but YMMV; complaints to me. ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce- > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 4:30 PM > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org > Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the RADIUS EXTensions Working Group of the > IETF. > > > Title : Extended Remote Authentication Dial In User > Service (RADIUS) Attributes > Author(s) : Y. Li, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 2008-11-02 > > For the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) protocol to > continue to support new applications, the RADIUS attribute type space > must be extended beyond the current limit of 255 possible attribute > types while maintaining backwards compatibility with the existing > protocol. This document defines a mechanism to accomplish that task, > along with standard methods to group together related attributes and to > encode values that don't fit into 253 octets. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-extended- > attributes-05.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:30:43 +0000 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081103003001.C4B373A63CB@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:30:01 -0800 (PST) --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the RADIUS EXTensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Extended Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Attributes Author(s) : Y. Li, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2008-11-02 For the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) protocol to continue to support new applications, the RADIUS attribute type space must be extended beyond the current limit of 255 possible attribute types while maintaining backwards compatibility with the existing protocol. This document defines a mechanism to accomplish that task, along with standard methods to group together related attributes and to encode values that don't fit into 253 octets. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-02162442.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:15:29 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: FW: I-D Action:draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02.txt Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:04:57 -0800 Message-ID: <00b301c93d47$cf581b40$6e0851c0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B4_01C93D04.C134DB40" thread-index: Ack9RyBCd8FzivyASza7qNTzefRPggAAKEhQ Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B4_01C93D04.C134DB40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI -----Original Message----- From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 4:00 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : RADIUS Attributes for IPv6 Support Author(s) : B. Lourdelet, G. Zorn Filename : draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2008-11-02 This document specifies the operation of RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service) when run over IPv6 as well as the RADIUS attributes used to support IPv6 network access. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ------=_NextPart_000_00B4_01C93D04.C134DB40 Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02.txt" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-02155130.I-D@ietf.org> ------=_NextPart_000_00B4_01C93D04.C134DB40 Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT00177.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00177.txt" _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt ------=_NextPart_000_00B4_01C93D04.C134DB40-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:02:47 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C93D47.551BAD78" Subject: RE: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Two Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 01:01:33 +0100 Message-ID: <A05118C6DF9320488C77F3D5459B17B70880333F@xmb-ams-333.emea.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Two Thread-Index: Ack9LcWuuFAzyA4nSl+Ay9VmmrurZgAGKYYw From: "Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@cisco.com> To: "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l96; t25670494; x26534494; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=blourdel@cisco.com; z=From: "Benoit Lourdelet (blourdel)" <blourdel@ cisco.com> |Subject: RE: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Two |Sender: ; bh=JQa6p48uprE12+sYbOPZz9UU3li7n5oWA2CvE+UnwmU=; b=bP5Wbv6GvakctMB+SMFxC1DplZZ7nzMQ9dSvIlYKrsDFbqAkZ+ZZemYRdg 2l+FZhPPJoTNYJa0aEfqZoWTiZgg3JMV2zpca8scGSW7fDhC7v8EHEaKJDPu 0shDDboXBc; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=blourdel@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C93D47.551BAD78 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I suggest we include that individual submission : draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02 (10 min) regards Benoit ________________________________ From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 9:58 PM To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Two At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. Currently the Agenda is as follows: 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries Blue Sheets Note Takers Jabber Scribe Agenda bashing Document Status Documents completing IETF Last Call 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05 Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04 10:00 AM - 10:10 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements -02 RADEXT WG Work Items <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02> 10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 Pre-Working Group Work Item Review 10:30 AM - 10:40 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/ <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02> draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02> 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-089> Internationalization 10:50 AM - 11:05 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282 <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C93D47.551BAD78 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <STYLE>.hmmessage P { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px } BODY.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma } </STYLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY class=hmmessage> <DIV><SPAN class=208025523-02112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Hello,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=208025523-02112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=208025523-02112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>I suggest we include that individual submission :</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=208025523-02112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=208025523-02112008><FONT size=3> <P>draft-lourdelet-radext-rfc3162bis-02<SPAN class=208025523-02112008> (10 min)</SPAN></P> <P> </P> <P><SPAN class=208025523-02112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>regards</FONT></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN class=208025523-02112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </P> <P><SPAN class=208025523-02112008><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Benoit</FONT></SPAN></P></FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left> <HR tabIndex=-1> <FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Bernard Aboba<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, November 02, 2008 9:58 PM<BR><B>To:</B> radiusext@ops.ietf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> IETF 73 Agenda - Take Two<BR></FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV></DIV><BR> <META content="Microsoft SafeHTML" name=Generator> <STYLE>.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px } .ExternalClass BODY.EC_hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma } </STYLE> At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. <BR>Currently the Agenda is as follows:<BR> <BR>9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries<BR> Blue Sheets<BR> Note Takers<BR> Jabber Scribe<BR> Agenda bashing<BR> Document Status<BR> <BR>Documents completing IETF Last Call<BR> <BR>9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06" target=_blank>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06</A><BR> <BR>9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05" target=_blank>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05</A><BR> <BR>Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call<BR> <BR>9:30 AM - 9:40 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02" target=_blank>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02</A><BR><BR>9:40 AM - 9:50 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" target=_blank>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02</A><BR> <BR>9:50 AM - 10:00 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04" target=_blank>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04</A><BR> <BR>10:00 AM - 10:10 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02" target=_blank>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02</A><BR> <BR>RADEXT WG Work Items<BR> <A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" target=_blank></A><BR>10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<BR>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00<BR> <BR>Pre-Working Group Work Item Review<BR> <BR>10:30 AM - 10:40 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (10 minutes)<BR><FONT color=#0068cf><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target=_blank>http://tools.ietf.org/html/</A></FONT><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target=_blank>draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02</A><BR> <BR>10:40 AM - 10:50 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (10 minutes)<BR><FONT color=#0068cf><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-089" target=_blank>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09</A></FONT><BR> <BR>Internationalization<BR> <BR>10:50 AM - 11:05 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes)<BR><A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282" target=_blank>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282</A><BR> <BR> <TABLE style="BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD><A style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: rgb(1,132,203); TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood" target=_blank><SPAN style="PADDING-RIGHT: 24px; PADDING-LEFT: 24px; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; COLOR: rgb(63,181,85); PADDING-TOP: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline"></SPAN></A><BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C93D47.551BAD78-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:59:50 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> To: "'Bernard Aboba'" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Cc: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: RE: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Two Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:58:38 -0800 Message-ID: <006201c93d36$29ee6f30$7dcb4d90$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0063_01C93CF3.1BCB2F30" thread-index: Ack9LgPmQSJbpHBqSp6z/oOOoFOGXAAB+FNQ Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C93CF3.1BCB2F30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I do not plan to attend the meeting; maybe one of my co-authors would like to talk about the Extended Attributes draft (of which there will be -05 posted presently). From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 12:58 PM To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Two Currently the Agenda is as follows: 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries Blue Sheets Note Takers Jabber Scribe Agenda bashing Document Status Documents completing IETF Last Call 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05 Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04 10:00 AM - 10:10 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02 RADEXT WG Work Items 10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 Pre-Working Group Work Item Review 10:30 AM - 10:40 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/ <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02> draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02> 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-089> Internationalization 10:50 AM - 11:05 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282 ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C93CF3.1BCB2F30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"Segoe UI"; panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;} @font-face {font-family:"Arial Black"; panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p {mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} span.EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial Black","sans-serif"; color:#7030A0'>I do not plan to attend the meeting; maybe one of my co-authors would like to talk about the Extended Attributes draft (of which there will be -05 posted presently).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'> <div> <div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'> <p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Bernard Aboba<br> <b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 02, 2008 12:58 PM<br> <b>To:</b> radiusext@ops.ietf.org<br> <b>Subject:</b> IETF 73 Agenda - Take Two<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'><br> <br> Currently the Agenda is as follows:<br> <br> 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries<br> Blue Sheets<br> Note Takers<br> Jabber Scribe<br> Agenda bashing<br> Document Status<br> <br> Documents completing IETF Last Call<br> <br> 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06</a><br> <br> 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05</a><br> <br> Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call<br> <br> 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02</a><br> <br> 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02</a><br> <br> 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04</a><br> <br> 10:00 AM - 10:10 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02</a><br> <br> RADEXT WG Work Items<br> <br> 10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00<br> <br> Pre-Working Group Work Item Review<br> <br> 10:30 AM - 10:40 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (10 minutes)<br> <span style='color:#0068CF'><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/</a></span><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target="_blank">draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02</a><br> <br> 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (10 minutes)<br> <span style='color:#0068CF'><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-089" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09</a></span><br> <br> Internationalization<br> <br> 10:50 AM - 11:05 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282</a><br> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellpadding=0 style='border:none; border-top:solid black 1.0pt'> <tr> <td style='border:none;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'></td> </tr> </table> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> </div> </body> </html> ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C93CF3.1BCB2F30-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:58:26 +0000 Message-ID: <BLU137-W363379DA95C3FDE2FD984493220@phx.gbl> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_0e556ca2-a208-423b-a3fa-3ab1c9d0af51_" From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> To: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org> Subject: IETF 73 Agenda - Take Two Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 12:57:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 --_0e556ca2-a208-423b-a3fa-3ab1c9d0af51_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. Currently the Agenda is as follows: 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries Blue Sheets Note Takers Jabber Scribe Agenda bashing Document Status Documents completing IETF Last Call 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05 Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02 9:40 AM - 9:50 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04 10:00 AM - 10:10 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02 RADEXT WG Work Items 10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 Pre-Working Group Work Item Review 10:30 AM - 10:40 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (10 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09 Internationalization 10:50 AM - 11:05 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes) http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282 --_0e556ca2-a208-423b-a3fa-3ab1c9d0af51_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </style> </head> <body class='hmmessage'> <br> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=unicode"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft SafeHTML"> <style> .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma</style>At IETF 73, the RADEXT WG is currently scheduled to meet on November 18, 2008 from 9 AM - 11:30 AM. <br> Currently the Agenda is as follows:<br> <br> 9 AM - 9:10 Preliminaries<br> Blue Sheets<br> Note Takers<br> Jabber Scribe<br> Agenda bashing<br> Document Status<br> <br> Documents completing IETF Last Call<br> <br> 9:10 - 9:20 AM RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06</a><br> <br> 9:20 - 9:30 AM RADIUS Design Guidelines, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-design-05</a><br> <br> Documents completing RADEXT WG Last Call<br> <br> 9:30 AM - 9:40 AM RADSEC, Stefan Winter (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-radsec-02</a><br><br>9:40 AM - 9:50 AM Status-Server, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02</a><br> <br> 9:50 AM - 10:00 AM Extended RADIUS Attributes, Glen Zorn (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-04</a><br> <br>10:00 AM - 10:10 AM RADIUS Cryptoagility Requirements, David Nelson (10 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02</a><br> <br> RADEXT WG Work Items<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server-02" target="_blank"></a><br>10:20 AM - 10:30 AM TCP Transport, Alan DeKok (10 minutes)<br>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00<br> <br> Pre-Working Group Work Item Review<br> <br> 10:30 AM - 10:40 AM New Tunnel-Type Values, Abhishek Tiwari (10 minutes)<br> <font color="#0068cf"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/</a></font><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02" target="_blank">draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02</a><br> <br> 10:40 AM - 10:50 AM RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks, Bernard Aboba (10 minutes)<br> <font color="#0068cf"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-089" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-aboba-radext-wlan-09</a></font><br> <br> Internationalization<br> <br> 10:50 AM - 11:05 AM Issues with RFC 4282, Alan DeKok (15 minutes)<br> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282</a><br> <br><table style="border-top: 1px solid black; font-weight: bold; font-family: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif;"><tbody><tr><td><a style="font-size: 9pt; color: rgb(1, 132, 203); text-decoration: none;" href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood" target="_blank"><span style="padding: 0px 24px; font-size: 8pt; color: rgb(63, 181, 85); text-decoration: underline;"></span></a><br></td></tr></tbody></table> </body> </html> --_0e556ca2-a208-423b-a3fa-3ab1c9d0af51_-- -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/> Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:45:28 +0000 Message-ID: <490E030F.6070904@deployingradius.com> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:44:15 -0500 From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> CC: radiusext@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for IETF 73 Agenda Items Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bernard Aboba wrote: ... Could we also add the TCP transport draft? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dekok-radext-tcp-transport-00 Alan DeKok. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
- Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt David B. Nelson
- RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.… Bernard Aboba
- Re: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.… Nagesh Vankayala
- RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.… Abhishek Tiwari
- RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.… Glen Zorn
- RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.… Bernard Aboba
- RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.… Abhishek Tiwari
- RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.… David B. Nelson
- RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.… Abhishek Tiwari
- RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.… David B. Nelson
- WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00… Glen Zorn
- RE: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-typ… David B. Nelson
- RE: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-typ… Glen Zorn
- RE: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-typ… Abhishek Tiwari
- Re: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-typ… Greg Weber
- Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt Abhishek Tiwari
- RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.… Dave Nelson
- RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.… Abhishek Tiwari (NETWORKING)