Re: [radext] New DTLS document

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On May 2, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Alan DeKok <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>> I would be ok to remove Section 5.1.2 entirely.
> 
>  Which means that the rest of the document needs to be updated, too.
> It talks about accepting UDP and DTLS on the same port.  Section 5.1.2
> is only *justification* for why that works.  The other sections say
> *how* it's supposed to work.
> 
>  i.e. Deleting 5.1.2 means we'd have to delete more than half of
> Section 3, too.

That would be a side effect of this approach. However, most folks
(including me) seems to be okish keeping the current text as well.
So it would be Joe's voice that counts here now.


>> However, if WG wants to keep
>> Section 5.1.2 I would add a note there that it is intended to be a short term 
>> migration solution and can be turned off at some point of time. Implementations
>> and deployments are encouraged to switch to the RADIUS-DTLS port as soon as
>> possible. Would that be OK for the WG?
> 
>  I already added that in the latest rev.  See Section 3:
> 
>   This section describes how clients and servers should transition to
>   DTLS.  There is a fair amount of discussion around this transition,
>   as it is critical to get it correct.  We expect that once
>   implementations have transitioned to RADIUS/DTLS, the text in this
>   section will no longer be relevant.
> 
>  If we're just going to turn off UDP, we don't need any transition
> path.  We just break the network, and let everyone figure out what to do.
> 
>  The whole point of the text in Section 3 is to document how the
> transition path is handled.  Including (if so desired) accepting UDP and
> DTLS on the same port.
> 
>  I can add duplicate text in Section 5.1.2.  But the idea is for people
> to read the *entire* document, and act on it as a whole.

No need to duplicate. A pointer back to Section 3 would definitely 
suffice.

- Jouni


> 
>  Alan DeKok.