Re: [radext] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: (with DISCUSS)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Apparently, Brian did the review.  I'm adding him to this thread so he
can send the review to the draft distribution list.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would it be possible to see the IE doctor's feedback? The authors might find
> it useful as well. If it has been distributed already, my apologies if I
> missed it.
>
> regards,
>         Jouni
>
> 8/17/2016, 7:04 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind kirjoitti:
>>
>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: 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:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I fully support Alissa's discussion points and have two more to
>> add:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext/
>>
>> 1) IP-Port-Type TLV only covers UDP, TCP and ICMP. This is not very
>> future-proof: there are other transport protocols that have ports or
>> identifiers that may want to be supported in future. Also it is not clear
>> to me from the document why this information is needed at all in the
>> described use cases. Therefore I see two possible ways forward: Either
>> remove the IP-Port-Type TLV or extend it to also cover other cases.
>>
>> Related to this point I would like to mention that RFC6887 is not
>> restricted to UDP/TCP and therefore the following sentence in section 2
>> is not correct:
>> "Note that the definitions of [...] "internal port", [...] "external
>> port" [...] are the same as defined in Port Control Protocol (PCP)
>> [RFC6887]"
>>
>> 2) The IE doctors have provide feedback to IANA that the Information
>> Elements in this doc are underspecified (not confirm with rules in RFC
>> 7013) and should therefore be not registered.  Addressing this feedback
>> could lead to a mayor rewrite of this doc, especially in the relation to
>> the use and definition of transportType and receptively IP-Port-Type TLV,
>> and should therefore be done before a final IESG decision.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen