Subject: Re: [radext] Review of draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets-02.txt

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 14:51:36 -0500

Hi.
I'm about to upload a new version that includes all your fixes except:

   2. Abstract and Introduction. I'm not convinced that the reason of
   having new use cases where more than 4096 bytes are required in RADIUS
   is motivated only by RFC6614. Other security mechanisms such as IPsec
   or a trusted network would be enough to motivate use cases such as
   those described in ABFAB and/or in the aaa-saml draft. In our RADIUS
   fragmentation draft we mention ABFAB as the motivation.

We're not in agreement on this change.
>From my standpoint RADIUS made sense for ABFAb because of RADSEC.
IPsec is really hard to use for this sort of security and I don't
believe in trusted networks:-)

I'd appreciate additional comments from the WG on this issue.

I appreciate your detailed review and thanks for all the great help.  I
think I've resolved the other points; several important catches in your
comments.

--Sam