Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] Dan Romascanu's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-radius-ext-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Maglione Roberta <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,
   I did not receive any answer from AAA Doctors, I'm waiting for their feedback before updating the document and submitting the new version.

Best regards,
Roberta

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: giovedì 11 agosto 2011 14.57
To: Maglione Roberta; The IESG
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Ullio Mario
Subject: RE: Dan Romascanu's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-radius-ext-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Roberta,

Thank you for your timely answer.

I will address part of your answers, and I am waiting for the original AAA Doctors reviewers to jump in for the other.

See in-line. I edited out the items that I will not discuss in this mail.

Regards,

Dan




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maglione Roberta [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:39 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
> [e-mail]; Ullio Mario
> Subject: RE: Dan Romascanu's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-
> radius-ext-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> Hello,
>    Please see answers inline [RM]
> Thanks,
> Regards,
> Roberta
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: giovedì 11 agosto 2011 11.16
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Dan Romascanu's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-radius-
> ext-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> Dan Romascanu has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-radius-ext-05: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-
> criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>

...

>
> 3. Section 4.1 describes a NAS sending an Access-Accept to a RADIUS
> server.   Either this is a typo (e.g. it should say Access-Request) or
> the authors are making a major change to the RADIUS protocol:
>    This attribute MAY be used in Access-Accept packets as a hint to the
>    RADIUS server; for example if the NAS is pre-configured with a
>    default tunnel name, this name MAY be inserted in the attribute.
> The
>    RADIUS server MAY ignore the hint sent by the NAS and it MAY assign
> a
>    different AFTR tunnel name.
>
> [RM] it's a typo, sorry I have fixed it in version -05
>
>


[[DR]] Fine. I am editing out this item.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. The use of kewords in section 3 seems inconsistent. Why are the
> 'may' and 'shall' in the second paragraph of the section non-
> capitalized, while in the rest of the section the keywords are
> capitalized.
>
> [RM] I'm going to change them in this paragraph.
>
> > This list may also contain the AFTR Tunnel Name.  When
>    the NAS receives a DHCPv6 client request containing the DS-Lite
>    tunnel Option, the NAS shall use the name returned in the RADIUS DS-
>    Lite-Tunnel-Name attribute to populate the DHCPv6 OPTION_AFTR_NAME
>    option in the DHCPv6 reply message.
>
[[DR]] I believe that the 'shall' needs to be capitalized, so that the editing is consistent with the rest of the section. Is there a special reason not to use SHALL?


[RM] I'll change it to capitalized.

> 2. I support item #2 in David's DISCUSS about the need to document the
> operational considerations of the NAS configuration and device
> configuration changes.
>
> [RM] I tried to clarify this point in one of my previous emails, please
> let me know if the explanation addresses your comment.
>
[[DR]]  Not completely. This is still a configuration change, even if this is related to per-session/ per-users configuration/behavior. It is not clear to me how operators would know that such change occurred on the NAS. I will let David (holder of the DISCUSS) on this issue decide.


> 3. Two of the AAA-Doctors made in early reviews the comment that it was
> not clear why the authors needed a new AVP when the RADIUS tunnel
> attributes (RFC2868) could probably be reused here. One of them even
> proposed an alternative based on RFC2868 but authors argued that their
> approach was better. that may be true, but it would have been good to
> document the decision and explain why the alternative was rejected.
>
> [RM] When we first presented this draft in the RADEXT WG last year, the
> document contained two different attributes one for the DS-Lite-Tunnel-
> Name and another for the DS-Lite-Tunnel-Address, in order to match
> exactly the two different DHCPv6 options proposed for the same purpose.
> The idea to have a new AVP instead of re-using the one from RFC2868
> came up in order to have a 1:1 mapping between RADIUS AVPs and DHCPv6
> options. The reason behind this choice was to avoid having an extra
> logic implemented on the NAS required to decide in which DHCPv6 option
> inserting the value received from RADIUS AVP.
> After a long discussion based on DHC WG feedback, the DHCPv6 option
> related to AFTR address was removed from that document and only the
> AFTR name DHCPv6 option was kept, thus we updated this draft according
> to that decision.
>
[[DR]] Your explanation makes sense, but as I said in the comment the reasoning ...

> The idea to have a new AVP instead of re-using the one from RFC2868
> came up in order to have a 1:1 mapping between RADIUS AVPs and DHCPv6
> options. The reason behind this choice was to avoid having an extra
> logic implemented on the NAS required to decide in which DHCPv6 option
> inserting the value received from RADIUS AVP.

... would be useful to be included in the document.

> Thanks,
> Regards,
> Roberta


Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.