Subject: [eap] Fragmentation: RADIUS obligation to Framed-MTU

From: [email-masked] (Bernard Aboba)
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:30:26 -0800 (PST)

I've incorporated this change into the -13 version, available for
inspection below:

http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/EAP/draft-aboba-radius-rfc2869bis-13.txt

> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 16:55:11 -0700
> From: tom bonacci <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> CC: [email-masked]
> Subject: [eap] Fragmentation: RADIUS obligation to Framed-MTU
>
> Fragmentation: RADIUS obligation to Framed-MTU
> Submitter name: Tom Bonacci
> Submitter email address: [email-masked]
> Date first submitted: April 4th, 2003
> Reference:
> Document: RFC 2869bis
> Comment type: Technical
> Priority:
> Section: 2.4
> Rationale/Explanation of issue:
>
> The "Fragmentation" section, 2.4, reads in relevant part:
>   "... the Framed-MTU attribute may be included in an
>    Access-Request packet containing an EAP-Message
>    attribute so as to provide the RADIUS server with this
>    information."
>
> Does this (or should this) imply any obligation on the part of the
> RADIUS server to observe the value forwarded by the NAS?  The current
> wording indicates the NAS MAY provide this information but is silent on
> how the RADIUS server is to properly react upon its receipt in an
> Access-Request packet.
>
> Possible resolution:
> Augment the above with
>   "... the Framed-MTU attribute MAY be included in an
>    Access-Request packet containing an EAP-Message
>    attribute so as to provide the RADIUS server with this
>    information.  A RADIUS server having received a Framed-MTU
>    attribute in an Access-Request packet MUST NOT send any
>    subsequent packet in this EAP conversation containing
>    EAP-Message attributes whose values, when concatenated,
>    exceed the length specified by the Framed-MTU value."
>
> The above wording implies strict obligation on the part of the RADIUS
> server to observe the Framed-MTU value.  If strict obligation is not
> what's intended or desired, then the wording may be modified accordingly.
>
> regards,
> -tom