I submitted errata on this https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6915
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 5:21 PM Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote: > On Mar 31, 2022, at 10:05 AM, Oleg Pekar <oleg.pekar.2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > It looks like RADIUS RFC 2865, Section "5. Attributes" is ambiguous when > it talks about the attribute value size: > > > > First it says: "The Value field is zero or more octets", then it > provides 5 possible value data types none of which allows a zero length > value. > > Yeah. :( It's horrible. > > > Section "5.26. Vendor-Specific" also says about the value of a > vendor-specific attribute "The String field is one or more octets". > > > > Thus the RFC allows empty values for attributes in general but prohibits > for any declared types of the attributes. > > Yes. > > RADIUS is weird and terrible. > > Alan DeKok. > >
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
