Hi,

Thinking about the 4K limit in the RADIUS payload and the four options outlined 
by Josh and the discussion we had in Taipei, I guess we could have a fifth 
option: the use of multi-packet RADIUS sessions to transfer SAML data when the 
payload limit is reached. This will keep us in RADIUS space and allow for 
arbitrary long SAML messages. Of course, this would be an optional behavior, 
keeping the current (one SAML message in one RADIUS packet) as the default, 
mandatory, one. This approach could even be usable in other potential cases 
where the 4K payload limit may become an issue.

From the SAML RADIUS binding point of view this would imply to allow the use of 
several SAML messages. In principle, several AuthN statements related to the 
same NAI and containing the corresponding attributes.The RADIUS client / SAML 
RP would have to deal with them as a single statement

From the RADIUS protocol point of view I see two possible options: making the 
server to send successive Access-Challenge responses with the corresponding 
SAML messages, or defining a new RADIUS packet type. The first option has the 
advantage of being easier to implement, though it implies stretching (probably 
too much) the semantics of the challenge loops.

There is of course a lot to ellaborate to make this a viable solution and I can 
volunteer to start writing something more detailed if the group thinks this 
idea makes any sense.

Be goode,

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D

e-mail: [email protected]
Tel:      +34 913 129 041
-----------------------------------------






Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar 
nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace 
situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and 
receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab

Reply via email to