IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] I18N help: : I-D Action: draft-ietf-radext-nai-02.txt

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Mon, 18 March 2013 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9947721F86D3 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.355, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_MISC=0.353, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SOCKS=0.801, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M85Uo9kGDFvv for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [88.190.25.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098CC21F86CE for <radext@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B672240F53; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:16:38 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at power.freeradius.org
Received: from power.freeradius.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (power.freeradius.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3-QOTAb7N8Do; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:16:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Thor-2.local (bas1-ottawa11-1177690350.dsl.bell.ca [70.50.32.238]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E02D7224037F; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:16:37 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <51479244.4040004@deployingradius.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:16:36 -0400
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
References: <tslehfctlz1.fsf@mit.edu> <BLU401-EAS27345C42BDF3DFBFF61429A93E80@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU401-EAS27345C42BDF3DFBFF61429A93E80@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [radext] I18N help: : I-D Action: draft-ietf-radext-nai-02.txt
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 22:16:39 -0000

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> I agree that the NAI draft is broken, if only because "the client" can mean anything from a PPP peer to an HTTP client or SIP UA.
 Attempting to write a single ABNF covering HTTP and SIP URIs, as well
as EAP, PPP, L2TP, IKEv2, etc. let alone to insist that RADIUS proxies
have no role in normalization, seems to be contradicted by other RADEXT
drafts as well as by experience and common sense.

  What other drafts require RADIUS proxies to normalize usernames / realms?

  What else can we do to replace RFC 4282, which is arguably *worse*
than the current draft?

  Alan DeKok.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status