IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 14 October 2016 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6EE12988E; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ziig9w1YsEFW; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22b.google.com (mail-vk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8258D1293F2; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 83so101715020vkd.0; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q7N+5T9PILmsXPDnb7Uu0Xfxea/WVVxqIoc9Ynuxs30=; b=Kkvg7t4ZAAIVaBGETWEgmg0ozYSZCL0GXmcz59kH9YKvj+4G5hSz41bakRfJRetuwI LZ3+PH9FLrazfGFrvQMtNAF2tO13zisY1hq9IUp5OkrYL7X1cHe41J1TeIXw1AO5UXaL lw1pPkiJb5+KlL7k/HCTTP0D8+G2EDszfiG8/1sA9rzdo4Cm+Zf/jBMXyV25uLl/kg7B Y/U10/P9OF1xDT97gh0U0ehBKzQiRttVmjSFFvmPPHG/SZw8HIxmAy1hvm0I88wSmAdI rQw6V8EZRvk0y9BYmgXxeKM4vVgnMy7TH5JrvLEW0YDG3DDr/9WnEWlXEp1Uuh3ppK4e 8ilA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q7N+5T9PILmsXPDnb7Uu0Xfxea/WVVxqIoc9Ynuxs30=; b=aheSuxyt/62j98oAIv4s84LmYyBCsP+lGjyeIdqGZYZhvcXOQpQlKXFCUjZdCqlFXR vE21d3ngR2nOxilsrlgxDxYWUM2KYKYZVi3XP7PnbU6WpwFDdqhYcLKwNdHEQAkqgAFH 43Eo2ReEbyh6B4fBo/8UydvbNCvWdiqvZSRaCoQFEJtqK0NFqOTvANt5V9mb39xTP2YK DYZeGLnJrLpnUCPsBnOlV8ftViLamtflFJklIHdMcF4VNQ2No2ZB1CVdoP+tFvmFQSRS oFRQ/Y/MrmaYz3ry1OhoQqG401eJDQR2NarTGjqMXt4eASEV+TY9pc98y2KmTXme0R3V XIsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlIsLzjJhdqevd1swVKnf0Pen+axPIfu6THjitKQOaE9EBP5uBZQhBsmhl7Infk+QT6c8l1co39eYDSpA==
X-Received: by 10.31.183.134 with SMTP id h128mr9219183vkf.124.1476472139607; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.82.68 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6BF99484-6944-4F1D-ABE8-86BDC57C8412@deployingradius.com>
References: <147137412687.22998.17081075232946825763.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHbuEH7+Gw=zDiN66Aydmie2M4dXcVqjLKWHixR7Qe6ECfN9Hg@mail.gmail.com> <D0152C61-D391-482B-BF1E-45180F89DA41@cooperw.in> <EACFFDF5-3974-4778-8EDD-A68410BAD972@gmail.com> <28413_1473165080_57CEB718_28413_354_4_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01F9F38E@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <4DCE81CA-FC1F-4CFF-82E1-135E158087C6@deployingradius.com> <9128_1473174225_57CEDAD1_9128_1350_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01F9F961@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <4B308285-584D-4A53-BCA0-F1EC1F9C3BC9@deployingradius.com> <1813_1473773040_57D7FDEF_1813_3639_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01FAA8D8@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <23CAC502-C1F0-4DD6-AB82-8A38BD6D0B88@deployingradius.com> <32661_1476458174_5800F6BE_32661_2282_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E03D07880@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <02671AAF-B095-42FC-8BD8-37D2C847CD5A@deployingradius.com> <CAHbuEH4Ai146sv1gvC00zSwwzA7v6+4yJO=fozp7U6nJvvaZ8g@mail.gmail.com> <6BF99484-6944-4F1D-ABE8-86BDC57C8412@deployingradius.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:08:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH7NamN4oWKtM0kVoCdMMotXaadQ-y8HDDGcdnoNwjrZ7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113bee226708de053ed7f5de"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/6QmJ7GUrBauI-hL_h-KvqO2WV1w>
Cc: "draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext@ietf.org>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, "lionel.morand@orange.com" <lionel.morand@orange.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "radext-chairs@ietf.org" <radext-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [radext] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:09:02 -0000

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
wrote:

> On Oct 14, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <
> kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems the WG is just down to a preference question as I don't see how
> there would be conflicts except if different parties defined their own
> sub-TLVs and they didn't match.  Could that occur?  I have to dig deeper to
> make sure I'm not missing anything.
>
>   If all TLV allocations go through IANA, then the registration procedure
> should prevent conflict.
>
>   If the IANA registration procedure is well documented, then that
> procedure should prevent conflict.
>
>   I don't see a big difference between allowing TLVs to be of data type
> "integer", "ipv4 address", "sub-TLVs are OK", or "contents to be defined by
> sub-TLV registry FOO".
>
>   There is simply no way to have any kind of conflict in the allocation.
>
> > For the future, you can ask IANA these sorts of questions via email or
> at meetings to work through preferences if you are looking for their
> opinion.  I should have caught that this was an issue and am not sure why I
> didn't before putting it on a telechat.  So, that was my fault.
>
>   I'm not sure IANA would have an opinion here.
>

OK, so in that case I may be the tie breaker as AD,  I'll just read through
everything again and respond, unless the WG participants start to show a
strong preference.


>
>   Alan DeKok.
>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email