Re: Re: Reliable delivery (AD comment)

Bernard Aboba <mailto:abobainternaut.com> allegedly
scribbled on
Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:26 PM:

>> My conclusion (based upon the actual text of the
relevant RFCs rather
>> than anecdotal evidence regarding
"well-behaved" RADIUS
>> implementations)
> 
> RFC 2865 already recommends behavior that prevents
out-of-order
> delivery. 

Actually, it doesn't.  As I have pointed out repeatedly ,
the semantics
of the Identifier in RADIUS & EAP are identical.  

> A proposal to strengthen that to a MUST is on the
table.  From what I
> can tell, this resolves the issue for RADIUS. 
> 
>> that "well-behaved" EAP implementations
do NOT require duplicate
>> detection in the transport any more than do
"well-behaved" RADIUS
>> implementations.
> 
> The difference between RFC 3748 and 2865 is that 3748
does not
> recommend a duplicate cache of substantial duration.  

Hmm.  I don't really consider "a short period of
time" to convey any
meaningful sense of duration; in any case, see below.

> That makes a
> difference if a duplicate is intermingled with a new
packet.  

I believe that the packet flow which I gave in an earlier
message
illustrated that a timer-based algorithm is insufficient for
duplicate
detection in both RADIUS and EAP if the identifier is
allowed to simply
"change" between exchanges.  In fact, I think that
timers are
unnecessary: all that is needed to solve the problem is to
specify the
semantics of the Identifier to be those of a sequence number
with
roll-over.  
____________________________________________________________
_____
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please
visit:
http:/
/lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap

Arhives: http://lists.
frascone.com/pipermail/eap

On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:37:15PM -0800, Glen Zorn (gwz)
wrote:
> 
> I believe that the packet flow which I gave in an
earlier message
> illustrated that a timer-based algorithm is
insufficient for duplicate
> detection in both RADIUS and EAP if the identifier is
allowed to simply
> "change" between exchanges.  In fact, I think
that timers are
> unnecessary: all that is needed to solve the problem is
to specify the
> semantics of the Identifier to be those of a sequence
number with
> roll-over.  
> 

I agree, and that is what PANA is doing with sequence
number.

Yoshihiro Ohba
____________________________________________________________
_____
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please
visit:
http:/
/lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap

Arhives: http://lists.
frascone.com/pipermail/eap