RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-01
Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Sun, 25 September 2011 17:04 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A6421F8B12 for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.856
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.856 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.272, BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BtRtUgGpelhJ for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A51121F8B0B for <radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>) id 1R7s7C-0007dJ-9Q for radiusext-data0@psg.com; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:03:42 +0000
Received: from blu0-omc1-s23.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.34]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>) id 1R7s78-0007d7-GF for radiusext@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:03:38 +0000
Received: from BLU152-W26 ([65.55.116.7]) by blu0-omc1-s23.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:03:37 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU152-W2657B534FF7211C3E7252993F20@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_3e49f6ea-cb16-4889-afaa-98e682e8ee59_"
X-Originating-IP: [98.203.198.61]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-01
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:03:37 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <94DBA75C-3D10-4487-8C56-303901E55704@gmail.com>
References: <4E64DD35.4030306@deployingradius.com> <A1D0B8C0-D679-4066-8623-C7E837A3A639@gmail.com>, <94DBA75C-3D10-4487-8C56-303901E55704@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2011 17:03:37.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[115E6140:01CC7BA5]
Sender: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <radiusext.ops.ietf.org>
Here are my comments: The IANA Considerations section needs to be revised. It is recommended that the IANA considerations section be rewritten according to the recommendations of RFC 5226, and that this be cited as a normative reference. Some issues: 1. The IANA considerations section does not specify how attributes are to be allocated from the extended space, using policy terms defined in RFC 5226. 2. Normative language terms "SHOULD"/"SHOULD NOT" are used in Sections 9.1 and 9.5. The IANA is not a policy making body and therefore is not capable of handling MAY, SHOULD or SHOULD NOT directives. 9.1. Attribute Allocations IANA is requested to move the "Unassigned" numbers in the range 144-191 from "Unassigned" to "Deprecated". This status means that allocations SHOULD NOT be made from this space. Instead, allocations SHOULD be taken from the Extended Type space, starting with lower numbered attributes. However, allocation from the "Deprecated" space MAY still be performed by publication of an IETF specification, where that specification requests allocation from the "Deprecated" space, and gives reasons why use of the Extended Type space is impossible. [BA] It seems that the goal is to still allow allocation from the Unassigned range, while preferring allocation from the Extended Type space. A more implementable way of accomplishing this might be to say that unless specifically requested to allocate from the Standard RADIUS space, IANA should make allocations from the extended type space. 9.5. Extending the RADIUS Attribute Type Space The extended RADIUS Attribute Type space may eventually approach exhaustion. When necessary, the space SHOULD be extended by publication of a specification which allocates new attributes of either the "Extended Type", or the "Extended Type with flags" format. [BA] This material relates to IETF not IANA processing, and so is not appropriate for an IANA considerations section. The IANA cannot handle the policy decisions that are implied here. The specification SHOULD request allocation of a specific number from the "Reserved" RADIUS Attribute type space, such as 247. The attribute(s) SHOULD be given a name which follows the naming convention used in this document. The Extended-Type value of 26 MUST be allocated to a "Vendor Specific" attribute, of data type "esv". The Extended-Type values of 241 through 255 MUST be marked as "Reserved". IANA SHOULD allocate the attribute(s) as requested. For example, if allocation of attribute 247 is requested, the following definitions MUST be made in the specification, and allocated by IANA. * 247.1 Extended-Attribute-7 * 247.{1-25} Unassigned * 247.26 Extended-Vendor-Specific-7 * 247.{27-240} Unassigned * 247.{241-255} Reserved We note,however, that the above list is an example, and we do not request or perform allocation of attribute 247 in this document.
- Extensions document Alan DeKok
- WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-01 jouni korhonen
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-… jouni korhonen
- RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-… Alan DeKok
- RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-… Leaf yeh
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-… Alan DeKok
- RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-… Leaf yeh
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-… Alan DeKok
- RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-… Leaf yeh
- Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-… Alan DeKok
- Re: [radext] WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-ex… Leaf yeh
- Re: [radext] WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-radius-ex… Alan DeKok