-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Check RFC compliance #16
Comments
This issue doesn't involve coding and rather focuses on identifying what is missing from the current implementation of RADIUS |
In RFC 2865
Seems like I'd need to change allowed_hosts from list to dictionary, so we can store IP & secret |
In RFC 3576
and
Seems like I am missing small bits from RFC 3576, so need to check on if it is beneficial to priorotise them into the next release The rest of the RFC is either implemented or not appicable because it is more about application logic (RADIUS Server/Client) then RADIUS protocol per se |
In RFC 2866
and
Seems like:
The rest of the RFC is either implemented or not appicable because it is more about application logic (RADIUS Server/Client) then RADIUS protocol per se |
In RFC 2867
Introduces new attribute, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 2868
and
Introduces new attributtes with new logic around it, so need to ensure
|
In RFC 2869
Introduces:
|
In RFC 3162
Introduces new:
|
In RFC 3580
No new things to implement for RADIUS protocol |
In RFC 4072
Mainly goes about Diameter protocol & how Radius talks to Diameter, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 4372
Introduces new attribute, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 4603
Introduces new values for Nas-Port-Type attribute, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 4675
Introduces new attributes, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 4679
Introduces new attributes, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 4818
Introduces new attribute, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 4849
Introduces new attribute, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 5090
Introduces new attributes, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 5176
Mentiones RADIUS Client/Server logic, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 5447
Talks about support for Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction (Diameter Mobile IPv6), so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 5580
Mentiones RADIUS Client/Server logic, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 5607
Introduces new attributes & values, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 5904
Introduces new attributes, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 6158
Talks about RADIUS Design Guidelines, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 6519
Introduces new attribute, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 6572
Introduces new attributes, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 6911
Introduces new attributes, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 6930
Introduces new attribute, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 6677
Talks about Channel-Binding support to tackle "lying NAS" problem. This relates to actual RADIUS Client/Server implementations, so there is nothing to add to this crate |
In RFC 6929
|
In RFC 7055
Introduces GSS-API mechanism for EAP. THis is strictly for actual RADIUS Client/Server implementation and not for the present crate |
In RFC 7155
Talks about Diameter protocol, nothing to do here |
In RFC 7268
Introduces new attributes, so nothing to implement here |
In RFC 7499
Experimental - talks about potential support for fragmented RADIUS packets |
In RFC 7930
Experimental - talks about potential usage of TCP protocol to carry RADIUS packets to avoid UDP limitation and usage of fragmented RADIUS packets over UDP protocol |
In RFC 8044
This RFC states clear data types and tries to ensure those to be uniform, so there is no confusing what string, text and etc are |
In RFC 8045
Defines a number of new attributes, not sure anything should be added to library from this RFC |
In RFC 8559
Talks about Proxying CoA requests in RADIUS system. Nothing to be implemented in this library from this RFC |
All RFCs have been looked at, all missing things resolved into new issues, so can close this one :) |
There are a number of RFCs describing protocol and standards around it, so it is better to ensure I follow them all (or as many as possible)
Right now, I only took into account (explicitly, but possibly some bits are coming from other RFCs):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: