TCP transport draft

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

  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/>