Re: [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls

Fabian Mauchle <fabian.mauchle@switch.ch> Wed, 20 March 2024 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fabian.mauchle@switch.ch>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D03C180B5C for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=switch.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zCqRWJWpP4D0 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.switch.ch (mx4.switch.ch [85.235.88.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 871CEC180B61 for <radext@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=switch.ch; l=1064; s=selector1; t=1710942803; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:references:from: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MspDH4p72PMXAXzUR1HPCMNEdHgKc5G9dlSRqRUpCsY=; b=aDH5WyvZ2FEhEyrAHX3/wxmIJrTBABqqeEJP9t+5NXWyDkIldBKPt5ZY TE/nr5glRCmuE6t8mIzB566HPK5fT/GF9qktfg3cdD66H0K6fXknvveSk QvjMMQ66Npm8tcHejVx+3nixPeUTk07oyZMg41nSC2sXzdgMxciF14UDO OlrYhvKdPoboGjezUXaQi1gTFOSkAirr5ZKfwf9awTJgT++S5YIGOQaic tLLOOyQ3LTiEt26iAeAk331S7bz2rSaVcvRz9x24MGCLeqjYHt4lMCTxM aSNDWmNbGubIsEK0kR+Lz+53EkxwuEr4WBzFKRWvIqdLIkdKnu08Dyr3A w==;
X-IronPort-MAIL-FROM: fabian.mauchle@switch.ch
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,140,1708383600"; d="scan'208";a="7438619"
Received: from unknown (HELO SWH-S02-EXC1.swd.switch.ch) ([172.16.60.11]) by mx4int.switch.ch with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Mar 2024 14:53:20 +0100
Received: from [130.59.196.162] (172.16.60.33) by SWH-S02-EXC1.swd.switch.ch (172.16.60.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.32; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:53:19 +0100
Message-ID: <d4cf8bd5-d676-4a13-a843-9f4f4e496435@switch.ch>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:53:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: radext@ietf.org
References: <PH0PR11MB59287CFFF3E41AD652A13594D2332@PH0PR11MB5928.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Language: en-US, de-CH
From: Fabian Mauchle <fabian.mauchle@switch.ch>
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR11MB59287CFFF3E41AD652A13594D2332@PH0PR11MB5928.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.16.60.33]
X-ClientProxiedBy: SWH-S06-EXC4.swd.switch.ch (172.16.60.18) To SWH-S02-EXC1.swd.switch.ch (172.16.60.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/xeeIfXGtYEAfPwFJRt6QYDuTwi4>
Subject: Re: [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:53:27 -0000

On 20.03.2024 05:50, Mark Grayson (mgrayson) wrote:
> I think I raised this issue previously, but there may be a conflict 
> between mandating application-layer watchdog and the recommendation of 
> configurable idle timeout connection limits.
> 
> There may be a need to avoid mandating operation of the 
> application-layer watchdog, specifically with RADIUS/TLS connections 
> established dynamically using 7585, to then facilitate the graceful 
> closing of such connections using the idle timeout mechanism when all 
> devices have detached from the NAS.

I think this issue can be solved with a simple provision. The client 
side already specifies this, and it can be applied to the server the 
same way:

6.4.2.  Client Session Management

[...] Clients SHOULD close a session when no traffic other than watchdog 
packet and (possibly) watchdog responses have been sent [...].

 From my experience with eduroam, the watchdog (i.e. Status-Server) has 
been extremely helpful with bad firewall and load-balancer behavior.

-- 
Fabian