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 ver
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 tha
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 De
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 EA
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
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 f
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 35
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 back
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 allo
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. Vendor-Specific
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 unle
11 matches
Mail list logo