Re: [radext] New DTLS document

["Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[e-mail]>]

I think there are a few inconsistencies that need cleaning-up:

- Section 2.2.1

Section 2.5 of RFC 6614 should apply to RADIUS over DTLS since a single port is used for all types of RADIUS codes.  ( I think the last bullet point in section 2.1 should be removed as well.)

- Section 5.1.1

This section references a requirement to receive RADIUS/UDP and RADIUS/DTLS on the same port, this is no longer a requirement.  Suggest cleaning up the text along the lines of:

" ...  Implementations that accept RADIUS/DTLS on the RADIUS/UDP port may find this recommendation difficult to implement in
   practice.  ... "

- Section 5.1.2

I still have a concern about the disambiguation recommendation since it relies upon a protocol field which is not in control of RADIUS, but it is rather in control of DTLS.  Its possible that int he future DTLS may choose to define a new extended handshake type that would use a different type code of 22.  This would introduce ambiguity and prevent this version of DTLS from being used with this mechanism.  It would be a better, more reliable design to have the disambiguation rely upon something that RADIUS had control over.   For example, define a RADIUS code type that encapsulates a RADIUS DTLS message.  

Additionally section 5.1.2 should clarify that it only applies to implementations that accept RADIUS/DTLS on the RADIUS/UDP port 

- Section 5.1.3 

Most of this section applies to implementations that accept RADIUS/DTLS on the RADIUS/UDP port.  THis section should clarify this.  I think the last 3 paragraphs are generic and can be moved to a a different section, such as 5.1.1.


- Section 9

We could request the same port as RADSEC.  Something like:

IANA is requested to assign a registered UDP  port number for RADIUS over DTLS.  The same values as for RADIUS over TLS (RFC6614) are requested.  That is, update the registry as follows:

      radius-dtls 2083/udp RADIUS over DTLS [RFCTBD]






On Apr 18, 2013, at 12:26 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> Folks,
> 
> <as a co-chair>
> 
> Everybody happy with -05 ? If I here no immediate 
> voices of disagreement, we can conclude the WG
> has reached consensus and the document can move
> forward. I'll wait till next Monday.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Alan DeKok <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-dtls-05
>> 
>> Which addresses all of the open concerns.
>> 
>> Alan DeKok.
>> _______________________________________________
>> radext mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext