RE: FW: ISSUE: definition of RADIUS IPv6 "data types" arbitrary and unjustified

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@deployingradius.com] writes:

> > However, simply examining the references shows that none of the RFCs
> cited
> > define _any_ "data types".
> 
>   Unfortunately, I know how to use "grep".

Even more unfortunately, you don't seem to know how to read.  The original
message read "However, simply examining the references shows that none of
the RFCs cited define _any_ "data types", the "RFCs cited" being 3162, 2869,
4818 & 4675 but not 2865.  Please start making sense.

> 
> $ grep "data type" rfc2865.txt
> ...
>       The format of the value field is one of five data types.  Note
>                 standard Attributes do not use this data type but it is
> ...
> 
>   That was difficult.  Now let's read the document in more detail to
> see
> what it says.  From RFC 2865 Section 5, Page 25:
> 
> 
>       The format of the value field is one of five data types.  Note
>       that type "text" is a subset of type "string".
> 
> 
>   It goes on to name the five data types, and give definitions for each
> one.  These data types are then used in the attribute definitions in
> RFC
> 2865, and in other RADIUS RFCs.

Show us.  I've already given multiple counter-examples from RFC 2865; can
you just show one?

> 
>   In addition, this text is taken from RFC 2058, which was written over
> a decade ago, and says:
> 
> 
> 	The format of the value field is one of four data types.
> 
> 
>   Of course, that isn't the whole story.  To highlight the irony (or
> hypocrisy), these data types are used by you in RFCs that you either
> authored or co-authored:
> 
> 	RFC 2548
> 	RFC 2867
> 	RFC 2868
> 	RFC 3162
> 
> > Requested change:
> > Either delete the entire section or modify it to be a more reasonable
> and
> > justified _description_ of formats that have been previously used in
> RADIUS
> > to carry quantities related to IPv6, rather than using irrelevant
> references
> > to attempt to justify the  _prescription_ of future behavior.
> 
>   This issue should be rejected out of hand.  The concept of "data
> types" goes back to the beginning of RADIUS, and was part of the
> original protocol specification.

The data types in question are "IPv6 address", "IPv6 prefix" and
"integer64".  These do not exist as "data types" in any existing RFC.  If
you can't make sense, at least pay attention.

> 
>   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/>