Subject: [AAA-WG]: Fwd: typos in draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-14.txt

From: Ignacio Goyret <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:02:35 -0800

[Sorry for the direct email but I'm not sure if the message will make it
 to the list -- with additional corrections]

Description of issue
    Typos in the table under section 7, Tunneling, page 46.
  
Submitter name: Ignacio Goyret
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: 3/16/04
Reference: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-14.txt
Document: nasreq
Comment type: E
Priority: S
Section: 7
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

The table in section 7, page 46, contains a couple of typos that conflict with
the text in section 7.10 and 7.11.

Requested change:

The table reads:
                              vvvvvvvvvv
Tunnel-Client-    90   7.10   Unsigned32 | M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
  Auth-Id                                |    |     |    |     |    |
Tunnel-Server-    91   7.11   OctetString| M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
  Auth-Id                                |    |     |    |     |    |
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^

It should read:

                              vvvvvvvvvv
Tunnel-Client-    90   7.10   UTF8String | M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
  Auth-Id                                |    |     |    |     |    |
Tunnel-Server-    91   7.11   UTF8String | M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
  Auth-Id                                |    |     |    |     |    |
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^

---

From: David Mitton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:24:14 -0500

On 3/16/2004 01:02 PM -0800, Ignacio Goyret wrote:
>Reference: 
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-14.txt
>Document: nasreq
>Comment type: E
>Priority: S
>Section: 7
----
>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:25:39 -0800 (PST)
>From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue 462: typo in draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-14.txt
>
>Issue 462: Typo in the table under section 7, Tunneling, page 46.
>Reference: 
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-14.txt
>Document: nasreq
>Comment type: E
>Priority: S
>Section: 7
>The table in section 7, page 46, contains a typo that conflicts with the
>text in section 7.10.
>
>Requested change:
>
>The table reads:
>
>Tunnel-Client-    90   7.10   OctetString| M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
>   Auth-Id                                |    |     |    |     |    |
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^

Interesting...
         Clearly an incorrect transcription.

In RFC 2868 where these attributes come from they are defined as RADIUS 
"String" types.

In general RADIUS String attributes are mapped to Diameter OctetString 
AVPs.  And RADIUS "Text" attributes are mapped to Diameter UTF8Strings AVPs.

But the text Description of these attributes says that they "SHOULD be 
represented in the UTF-8 charset", so my tendancy would be to give that 
representation priority.

The distinction betweeen "Text" and "String" attribute data types was not 
present in the original RADIUS RFC 2038.  It was introduced in RFC 2865, 
and RFC 2868 shares the same publication date as 2865.  This change may 
have been missed.

Reviewing other attributes in this section, I see some more inconsistencies.
(Some in the text, some in the table)

Unless a RADIUS String attribute Description indicates a UTF8 or Text 
representation, it should be considered an OctetString.

Dave.