[radext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-13: (with COMMENT)
"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 17 October 2016 06:39 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: radext@ietf.org
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B27312956E; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 23:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.34.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147668636939.25787.9430106154790695.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 23:39:29 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/D0Jgt3-pk7uwfarQLfxbcbLcJDE>
Cc: draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext@ietf.org, lionel.morand@orange.com, radext-chairs@ietf.org, radext@ietf.org
Subject: [radext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:39:29 -0000
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-13: No Objection 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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for removing the ICMP identifier thing. OLD COMMENTS below. I'm happy to chat about 'em if we need to. - write-up: Yeah, major yuks to leaving design decisions to IANA. While the folks there are quite capable, they are not able to make IETF consensus decisions. If the WG aren't sure, ask IANA personnel (or someone) and then verify that that outcome garners rough consensus back in the WG or using other IETF processes. So Alissa's discuss point#4 is entirely, completely and fully correct and a showstopper really. - I also agree with the issue called out in Joel's comment about mission creep and how this overlaps with PCP. Did the WG consider whether or not it is a good idea for the IETF to define multiple ways in which some of these features can be added? If so, what is the justification for there being more than one? (Is that somewhere in the WG list archive? If not, it ought be.) It may well be that having a RADIUS mechanism for this is also a good plan, but I think that ought be justified. - 4.1.4: using port 80 as an example is very 1990's. Would it not be better to be more up to date? That's not just a facetious point - web cameras being left open to the Internet are a major swamp for botnet gestation. Better to use a more desirable example really. - The secdir review [1] also noted a bunch of issues that as far as I can see received no response so far, but that do deserve a response. (Apologies if I missed a response.) [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06736.html
- [radext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [radext] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on dr… mohamed.boucadair