Subject: Re: [radext] #136: Table state management as security consideration?

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 13:59:57 -0000

#136: Table state management as security consideration?

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 The draft has been updated to clarify that the session tracking method is
 suggested, but not required.  No other method has been offered, so it's
 probably best to leave that text where it is.

 It's also been updated to note that the suggested tracking table is an
 extension of the cache mandated in RFC 5080 Section 2.2.2.

 The security considerations has been updated to note that the tracking
 table changes things, but the earlier text has DoS mitigation strategies.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-radext-
  [email-masked]     |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  dtls         |     Version:
 Severity:  -            |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/136#comment:2>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>