Re: [radext] [MARKETING] Re: Publication request for RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access Networks; draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-11

[Leaf yeh <[e-mail]>]

Roberta - I would like to see this document published ASAP...

So do I.

Doesn't it still look good in the process? I have no intention to pause it.
In fact, this draft has been cited by draft-ietf-dhc (OPTION_RADIUS).


Best Regards,
Leaf


-----Original Message-----
From: Maglione Roberta [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:04 PM
To: Leaf yeh; Wojciech Dec (wdec); jouni korhonen
Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [radext] [MARKETING] Re: Publication request for RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access Networks; draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-11

Hello Leaf and all,
   I don't quite understand why you are re-opening again this discussion: the working group already discussed this point and agreed to have different attributes for pools used for different purposes.
In my opinion the draft as is already explains the applicability of the all defined attributes.
The Framed-Pool is not part of this document: if you think more clarifications are needed for that attribute, feel free to propose an update to RFC 2869.
I would like to see this document published ASAP, this work is needed for our deployment, please let the draft move forward.
Best regards
Roberta


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Leaf yeh
Sent: martedì 14 agosto 2012 12.26
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec); jouni korhonen
Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [radext] [MARKETING] Re: Publication request for RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access Networks; draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-11

Leaf - I think it might be a good opportunity to
>make a clarification here, for the 2 new created 'pool name' attribute
>with the same data type of string are on the base that we decide not to
>reuse the attribute 88 named 'Framed-Pool'.

Woj. - ... until advised otherwise I'll stick
to the consensus previously established:


Then we could only rely on the records in the list archive to let people know that Framed-Pool (88) is dedicated for IPv4. I suppose we never disclose this point before.


http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext/current/msg02318.html
Nelson - > I have no problem with string encodings of pool names.   Since pools
> can be named arbitrarily by the NAS system administrator, anything
> other than a string encoding would be unnatural.  My issue is when we
> try to mix in a fixed set of address assignment methods with the pool
> names.  Separation of concerns.
Woj. - some folks claimed that the proposal in the draft is not needed and that
solving the case by overloading pool naming is better, followed on by a
second proposal for the enumerated type.


I suppose you might talk about the 'Access-Type' proposed in draft-yeh-radext-ext-dual-stack-access (active).


Nelson - > I don't think that specific values for *combinations* of options is a
> good way to go.
Woj. - It's rather clear that an enumerated attribute cannot handle this case.


For example, the user on the NAS get the access type of 'PPPoE-dual-stack-CE (IPv6-Numbered by DHCPv6)', you need include 3 attributes of 'Framed-Pool' (88), 'Delegated-IPv6-Prefix-Pool' and 'Stateful-IPv6-Address-Pool' in the Access-Accept for the assignment of the CE's WAN-interface IPv4 address, the DHCPv6-PD prefix for customer network, and CE's WAN-interface IPv6 address, if all these pools are configured on the NAS. But draft-yeh-radext-ext-dual-stack-access only need one attribute named 'Access-Type '.

The other advantage is the NAS can build the context for users based on their 'Access-Type'. It means we can use 'Access-Type' attribute to indicate the default configuration for users on the NAS.


Best Regards,
Leaf



-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:15 PM
To: Leaf yeh; jouni korhonen
Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [radext] [MARKETING] Re: Publication request for RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access Networks; draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-11

Leaf,

On 13/08/2012 10:44, "Leaf yeh" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Woj - This would be an IPv4 related restriction, that is out of scope for
>this draft.
>
>Not sure I would buy in it, I think it might be a good opportunity to
>make a clarification here, for the 2 new created 'pool name' attribute
>with the same data type of string are on the base that we decide not to
>reuse the attribute 88 named 'Framed-Pool'.

It appears that we have discussed this topic before in the context of the
re-use of other pool attributes. The issue remains the same IMO, and given
that the framed-pool-name attribute is an attribute which this draft does
not scope, and which deals with IPv4, until advised otherwise I'll stick
to the consensus previously established:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/minutes?item=minutes82.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radext/current/msg02318.html


Regards,
Woj..

>
>
>Best Regards,
>Leaf
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wojciech Dec (wdec) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:50 PM
>To: Leaf yeh; jouni korhonen
>Cc: Benoit Claise (bclaise); [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [radext] Publication request for RADIUS attributes for IPv6
>Access Networks; draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-11
>
>
>
>On 06/08/2012 03:15, "Leaf yeh" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>><quote>Technical Summary
>>
>>      The I-D defines additional attributes for various IPv6
>>      access network deployments (be that fixes or mobile network).
>>      The attributes complement already existing set of IPv6 attributes
>>      defined in e.g., RFC3162 and RFC4818. Furthermore, the I-D clarifies
>>      the use of some existing IPv6 related attributes and the relationship
>>      of those to the newly defined attributes. </quote>
>>
>>
>>Would the I-D like to clarify one more item as follows:  Use of the
>>Frame-Pool (88) attribute should be restricted to authorization of IPv4
>>address pool as per the fact of the internet industry, so this I-D has
>>not reused it for Stateful-IPv6-Address-Pool or
>>Delegated-IPv6-Prefix-Pool  ?
>
>This would be an IPv4 related restriction, that is out of scope for this
>draft.
>
>Regards,
>Woj..
>
>>
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Leaf
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>Of jouni korhonen
>>Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 4:34 AM
>>To: [e-mail]
>>Cc: Benoit Claise; [e-mail]
>>Subject: [radext] Publication request for RADIUS attributes for IPv6
>>Access Networks; draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-11
>>
>>Dear Secretary,
>>
>>This is a request for publication of draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-11 as
>>a standards track RFC.
>>
>>- Jouni
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>>Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
>>is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
>>title page header?
>>
>>      RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access Networks is to be published
>>      as a Standards Track RFC, which is indicated in the I-D's
>>      cover page Intended Status field.
>>
>>      The RADIUS attributes defined in this I-D are needed for the
>>      emerging IPv6 deployments across multiple types of network
>>      architectures.
>>
>>(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
>>Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
>>examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
>>documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
>>
>>Technical Summary
>>
>>      The I-D defines additional attributes for various IPv6
>>      access network deployments (be that fixes or mobile network).
>>      The attributes complement already existing set of IPv6 attributes
>>      defined in e.g., RFC3162 and RFC4818. Furthermore, the I-D clarifies
>>      the use of some existing IPv6 related attributes and the relationship
>>      of those to the newly defined attributes.
>>
>>
>>Working Group Summary
>>
>>      The I-D has been discussed extensively in the RADEXT WG and has
>>        reached the overall working group consensus. There was a lengthy
>>        discussion regarding the Route-IPv6-Information attribute format
>>        and whether it should also contain the rest of the RFC4191 Route
>>        Information Option field in addition to the prefix. The WG
>>        reached a consensus that the other values are local to router
>>        configuration and not retrieved from the RADIUS server.
>>
>>Document Quality
>>
>>        There is specific interest from the Broadband Forum to
>>incorporate
>>        the attributes defined in this specification into their
>>respective
>>        IPv6 standards.
>>
>>        AAA Doctors have not reviewed the document yet. There is no need
>>        for MIB or other doctorate review.
>>
>>        Once the document goes to IETF LC, a review from V6OPS should be
>>        requested.
>>
>>Personnel
>>
>>  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
>>  Director?
>>
>>       Jouni Korhonen ([e-mail]) is the document
>>       shepherd.
>>
>>(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
>>the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
>>for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
>>the IESG.
>>
>>       The document shepherd has reviewed the document after it has
>>       concluded the WGLC. The document shepherd thinks the document
>>       is ready for publication and there is no reason to delay the
>>       publication anymore, since the attributes defined in this
>>       document are needed by the industry.
>>
>>(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
>>breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
>>
>>       No.
>>
>>(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
>>broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
>>DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
>>took place.
>>
>>       The document should be reviewed by V6OPS once it goes to
>>       IETF LC.
>>
>>(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
>>has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
>>IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
>>with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
>>is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
>>has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
>>concerns here.
>>
>>       The document shepherd has no specific concerns.
>>
>>(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
>>disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
>>and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
>>
>>        No IPRs have been declared.
>>
>>(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
>>If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
>>disclosures.
>>
>>        No IPRs have been declared.
>>
>>(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
>>represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
>>being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
>>
>>        The WG consensus is solid and does not represent only the
>>        opinion of few individuals.
>>
>>(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>>discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
>>email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
>>separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
>>
>>        No.
>>
>>(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
>>document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
>>Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
>>thorough.
>>
>>        The document passes IDnits.
>>
>>(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
>>criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
>>
>>        The document does not define MIBs, media types, URIs etc.
>>        The data types used in the document comply with RFC6158.
>>
>>(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
>>either normative or informative?
>>
>>        Yes.
>>
>>(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
>>advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
>>references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
>>
>>        No.
>>
>>(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
>>If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
>>Last Call procedure.
>>
>>        No.
>>
>>(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
>>existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
>>in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
>>listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
>>part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
>>other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
>>explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
>>
>>        No.
>>
>>(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
>>section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
>>document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
>>are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
>>Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
>>identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
>>detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
>>allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
>>reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
>>
>>       The document only requests for five new RADIUS attribute types
>>       from an existing IANA registry.
>>
>>(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
>>allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
>>useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
>>
>>        None.
>>
>>(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
>>Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
>>language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
>>
>>        Checked with IDnits and verified against RFC6158 RADIUS
>>        design guidelines.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>radext mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
>>_______________________________________________
>>radext mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
>
>_______________________________________________
>radext mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.