[Dime] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com> Wed, 23 May 2018 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh@kaloom.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20862127010; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, dime-chairs@ietf.org, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, dime@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152710892612.27153.4934518520563046738.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:55:26 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/CaGojvksiG8LlK8W4QBqH4iHoyM>
Subject: [Dime] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:55:27 -0000

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-08: 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Section 8.38.

RFC5952 contains significant changes in text representation from RFC3513 and I
am concerned that there might be RFC4006 compliant implementations that will no
longer be legal with a MUST level use of RFC5952. e.g. Addresses with upper
case hex digits, with leading zeroes in 16 bit fields etc. Has the working
group considered this break in compatibility already in its discussions?

If it has, this text should still be finessed a bit because RFC5952
recommendations (even at the MUST level) are a SHOULD for senders with the
receivers being required to handle all possible legal formats as per RFC4291.
So at least the sender rules and receiver rules need to be written differently.


Section 8.65

Any reason you are allowing encoding an IPv4 address as a IPv4-Mapped IPv6
Address while you can directly use address family 1 to encode it directly as an
IPv4 address? This allows for two different encodings for the same address.