[Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:

2022-03-31 Thread Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
Dear EMU working group, Alan Dekok has reported two errata[1,2] against RFC 3579.  RFC 3579 is classed an independent submission, and thus falls under the purview of the Independent Submissions Editor (ISE).  The ISE is inclined to verify both errata, and will do so in the next two months

Re: [Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:

2022-03-31 Thread Alan DeKok
On Mar 31, 2022, at 10:29 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > I am CC'ing the RADEXT WG mailing list, since the errata relates to a widely > implemented RADIUS specification. > > Errata 6154: > > While Alan is correct that a RADIUS attribute with no data is not permitted > by RFC 2865, and RFC

Re: [Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:

2022-03-31 Thread Alan DeKok
On Mar 31, 2022, at 10:05 AM, Oleg Pekar 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

Re: [Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:

2022-03-31 Thread Oleg Pekar
Hi all, 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. Section "5.26.

Re: [Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:

2022-03-31 Thread Bernard Aboba
I am CC'ing the RADEXT WG mailing list, since the errata relates to a widely implemented RADIUS specification. Errata 6154: While Alan is correct that a RADIUS attribute with no data is not permitted by RFC 2865, and RFC 3579 is ambiguous about the length, I am concerned about the potential

Re: [Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:

2022-03-31 Thread Alan DeKok
On Mar 31, 2022, at 4:40 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > > Alan suggested: > " EAP-Start is indicated by sending an EAP-Message attribute with a >length of 3. The single byte of data SHOULD be set to zero on >transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. RADIUS clients MUST NOT >send

Re: [Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:

2022-03-31 Thread Bernard Aboba
Alan suggested: " EAP-Start is indicated by sending an EAP-Message attribute with a length of 3. The single byte of data SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. RADIUS clients MUST NOT send EAP-Message attributes of length 2, as attributes with no value

[Emu] TEAP parameters registry?

2022-03-31 Thread Alan DeKok
This is a minor NIT, but was confusing. The EAP numbers page is here: https://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers/eap-numbers.xhtml It contains a link to the EAP-FAST parameters: https://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-fast-parameters/eap-fast-parameters.xhtml But there's no similar link

Re: [Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:

2022-03-31 Thread Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
Ok. I have edited – but not yet verified – the two errata accordingly.  Please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/verify_errata_select.php?eid=6154 https://www.rfc-editor.org/verify_errata_select.php?eid=6259 Are there any further edits that are required? Eliot (ISE) On 01.04.22 00:52, Alan

Re: [Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:

2022-03-31 Thread Bernard Aboba
I think the note in eid6259 is now superfluous. Can we remove it? On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:09 PM Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote: > Corrected URLs below: > > On 01.04.22 06:48, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote: > > Ok. > > > > I have edited – but not yet

Re: [Emu] EAP Erratum 6154 on RFC 3579:

2022-03-31 Thread Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
Corrected URLs below: On 01.04.22 06:48, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote: Ok. I have edited – but not yet verified – the two errata accordingly.  Please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6154 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6259 Are there any further edits