Review requested: draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-03.txt

"Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Tue, 03 October 2006 20:21 UTC

Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:22:03 +0000
Message-ID: <BAY106-F3182D8A4684F0B9A9DDE72931C0@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Bcc:
Subject: Review requested: draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-03.txt
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:21:42 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"

A new version of the Delegated Prefix attribute has been posted to the 
archive:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-03.txt

This document has already gone through IESG review, so it is one step away 
from publication.

Can people take a look at it?

I found one typo, in Section 5:

   The AVP flag rules [5] for the Delegate-IPv6-Prefix attribute are:

                                            +---------------------+
                                            |    AVP Flag rules   |
                                            |----+-----+----+-----|----+
                   AVP  Section             |    |     |SHLD| MUST|    |
   Attribute Name  Code Defined  Value Type |MUST| MAY | NOT|  NOT|Encr|
   -----------------------------------------|----+-----+----+-----|----|
   Framed-IPv6-      97  6.11.6  OctetString| M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
     Prefix                                 |    |     |    |     |    |


Here the attribute should be Delegated-IPv6-Prefix, not Framed-IPv6-Prefix; 
the AVP should be TBD instead of 97, and the Section Defined entry should be 
deleted.

One other quibble.   In Section 1, it is stated:

"   The Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute [4] is not designed to carry an IPv6
   prefix to be used in the user's network, and therefore Framed-IPv6-
   Prefix and Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attributes may be included in the
   same RADIUS packet."

It strikes me that this statement is not necessarily accurate.  For example, 
if a bridge device connected to a NAS, then in fact the Framed-IPv6-Prefix 
attribute *could* be used to carry an IPv6 prefix to be used in the user's 
network.  However, if we are talking about a router, then this will not 
work.  So I think the sentence should be changed to:

"  The Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute [4] is not designed to support 
delegation of prefixes to
   be used in the user's network, and therefore Framed-IPv6-Prefix and 
Delegated-IPv6-Prefix
   attributes may be included in the same RADIUS packet."



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>