Subject: 64-bit Unsigned Integer?

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:31:37 -0700

Glen has brought up the question of whether existing RADIUS server
implementations in fact support 64-bit unsigned integers, or whether
they implement attributes such as Interface-ID as 64-bit octet Strings,
or specially formatted types. 

If you are aware of how existing implementations behave, please
reply to this message.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:43:25 +0700

I'm wondering when it was decided (& who made  the decision) that if an
implementation doesn't follow the standard, it's the standard that's broken
& not the implementation.

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:10:15 +0200

Glen Zorn wrote:
> I’m wondering when it was decided (& who made  the decision) that if an
> implementation doesn’t follow the standard, it’s the standard that’s
> broken & not the implementation…

  What, if anything, do you imagine that has to do with Bernards comment?

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:54:33 -0700

Glen Zorn said:

"I'm wondering when it was decided (& who made  the decision) that if an
implementation doesn't follow the standard, it's the standard that's broken
& not the implementation."

There are several issues that have been brought up: 

1.       What does RFC 3162 say about the type of the Interface-ID
attribute? The current Design Guidelines document asserts it is an 64-bit
unsigned integer.   As you pointed out, this does not appear to be supported
by the text of RFC 3162.

2.       Should the Design Guidelines document recommend that
implementations support the 64-bit unsigned integer type?

a.       Because it is currently supported?

b.      For some other reason? 

The question you have raised doesn't seem relevant to either of the two
above questions.  

From: Glen Zorn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:43 AM
To: 'Bernard Aboba'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: 64-bit Unsigned Integer?

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:10:51 +0700

>   What, if anything, do you imagine that has to do with Bernards

It's quite simple: he didn’t request discussion of my assertions regarding the technical content of the documents themselves (I expect that those would be uncontroversial) but about the interpretation of those documents by developers.  It would seem clear that at least one implementation has it completely wrong, however, so asking "how existing implementations behave" is tantamount to subjecting the standards to the implementations thereof.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:58:27 +0700

Bernard Aboba [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:
Glen Zorn said:

It's not.  However, neither is the question of how "existing implementations
behave", unless we are now basing BCPs upon the vagaries of (possibly
brain-dead) developers rather than published standards.