Re: [radext] [IANA #935820] Protocol Action: 'RADIUS Extensions for IP Port Configuration and Reporting' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16.txt)

Dean cheng <dean.cheng@huawei.com> Tue, 15 November 2016 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <dean.cheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext.all@virtual.ietf.org
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 589DB129A06; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:12:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351E7129441 for <xfilter-draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:12:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.718
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 KqM5fKz5B-oK for <xfilter-draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:12:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05AD7129A0C for <draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext.all@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CVE19612; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:12:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML702-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.176) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:12:52 +0000
Received: from DFWEML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.179]) by dfweml702-cah.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.176]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:12:45 -0800
From: Dean cheng <dean.cheng@huawei.com>
To: "drafts-approval@iana.org" <drafts-approval@iana.org>
Thread-Topic: [radext] [IANA #935820] Protocol Action: 'RADIUS Extensions for IP Port Configuration and Reporting' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHSPuW0MoRKHMLRY064K/2HWS1zu6DZXTcg
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:12:45 +0000
Message-ID: <DC7880973D477648AC15A3BA66253F686F31F41F@dfweml501-mbb>
References: <RT-Ticket-935820@icann.org> <147854394645.7294.9903452807987765582.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <rt-4.2.9-15273-1479175928-291.935820-7-0@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <rt-4.2.9-15273-1479175928-291.935820-7-0@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.212.244.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090201.582A7D35.0037, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: d2d0b5137c490a6f41f4f06484f78264
Resent-From: alias-bounces@ietf.org
Resent-To: dean.cheng@huawei.com, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, ssenthil@cisco.com, stefan.winter@restena.lu, lionel.morand@orange.com, bclaise@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com, Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, radext@ietf.org
Resent-Message-Id: <20161115031258.589DB129A06@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:12:58 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/9lufJOdl3R-Wkkt5gzRp1R_cMEQ>
Cc: "draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [radext] [IANA #935820] Protocol Action: 'RADIUS Extensions for IP Port Configuration and Reporting' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16.txt)
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 03:12:58 -0000

Hello Amanda,

Thank you for all the three actions taken for the
registry, which I've reviewed and found them correct.

I'll update the draft with the newly assigned
numbers before post the 17.txt and let you know.

Regards
Dean

> -----Original Message-----
> From: radext [mailto:radext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Amanda Baber
> via RT
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 6:12 PM
> Cc: draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext.all@ietf.org
> Subject: [radext] [IANA #935820] Protocol Action: 'RADIUS Extensions
> for IP Port Configuration and Reporting' to Proposed Standard (draft-
> ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16.txt)
> 
> Dear Authors:
> 
> ATTENTION: A RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE IS NEEDED
> 
> We've completed the registry actions for the following RFC-to-be:
> 
> draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16
> 
> ACTION 1:
> 
> The IANA Services Operator has added the following entry to the IPFIX
> Information Elements registry:
> 
> Element ID: 458
> Name: sourceTransportPortsLimit
> Data Type: unsigned16
> Data Type Semantics: totalCounter
> Status: current
> Description: This Information Element contains the maximum number of IP
> source transport ports that can be used by an end user when sending IP
> packets; each user is associated with one or more (source) IPv4 or IPv6
> addresses. This IE is particularly useful in address sharing
> deployments that adhere to REQ-4 of [RFC6888]. Limiting the number of
> ports assigned to each user ensures fairness among users and mitigates
> the denial-of-service attack that a user could launch against other
> users through the address sharing device in order to grab more ports.
> Units: ports
> Range: 1-65535
> Requester: [RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16]
> Revision: 0
> Date: 2016-11-10
> 
> Please see
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix
> 
> 
> ACTION 2:
> 
> We've added the following entries to the Radius Attribute Types
> registry:
> 
> 241.5    IP-Port-Limit-Info    [RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16,
> Section 3.1.1]
> 241.6    IP-Port-Range    [RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16,
> Section 3.1.2]
> 241.7    IP-Port-Forwarding-Map    [RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-
> 16, Section 3.1.3]
> 
> Please see
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types
> 
> 
> ACTION 3:
> 
> We've created the following registry under the "Radius Types" heading:
> 
> RADIUS IP Port Configuration and Reporting TLVs Registration
> Procedure(s): Standards Action
> Reference: [RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16]
> 
> Value 	Description 	Reference
> 0	Reserved	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16]
> 1	IP-Port-Type	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16, Section
> 3.2.1]
> 2	IP-Port-Limit	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16, Section
> 3.2.2]
> 3	IP-Port-Ext-IPv4-Addr	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16,
> Section 3.2.3]
> 4	IP-Port-Int-IPv4-Addr	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16,
> Section 3.2.4]
> 5	IP-Port-Int-IPv6-Addr	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16,
> Section 3.2.5]
> 6	IP-Port-Int-Port	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16, Section
> 3.2.6]
> 7	IP-Port-Ext-Port	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16, Section
> 3.2.7]
> 8	IP-Port-Alloc	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16, Section
> 3.2.8]
> 9	IP-Port-Range-Start	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16,
> Section 3.2.9]
> 10	IP-Port-Range-End	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16, Section
> 3.2.10]
> 11	IP-Port-Local-Id	[RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16, Section
> 3.2.11]
> 12-155	Unassigned
> 
> Please see
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types
> 
> 
> The updated list of Protocol Registries is available here:
> 
> http://www.iana.org/protocols/
> 
> Please let us know whether the above registry actions have been
> completed correctly. As soon as we receive your confirmation, we'll
> notify the RFC Editor that this document's actions are complete. If the
> document has a team of authors, one reply on behalf of everyone will
> suffice.
> 
> Since you'll be uploading the new version of the document shortly (the
> new values can be added to that version before you upload), please let
> us know when this is available to link to.
> 
> We'll make any further reference updates in the registries when the RFC
> Editor notifies us that they've assigned an RFC number.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Amanda Baber
> Lead IANA Services Specialist
> PTI
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext