[radext] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: (with DISCUSS)

["Mirja Kuehlewind" <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: Discuss

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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I fully support Alissa's discussion points and have two more to add:

1) IP-Port-Type TLV only covers UDP, TCP and ICMP. This is not very
future-proof: there are other transport protocols that have ports or
identifiers that may want to be supported in future. Also it is not clear
to me from the document why this information is needed at all in the
described use cases. Therefore I see two possible ways forward: Either
remove the IP-Port-Type TLV or extend it to also cover other cases.

Related to this point I would like to mention that RFC6887 is not
restricted to UDP/TCP and therefore the following sentence in section 2
is not correct:
"Note that the definitions of [...] "internal port", [...] "external
port" [...] are the same as defined in Port Control Protocol (PCP)
[RFC6887]"

2) The IE doctors have provide feedback to IANA that the Information
Elements in this doc are underspecified (not confirm with rules in RFC
7013) and should therefore be not registered.  Addressing this feedback
could lead to a mayor rewrite of this doc, especially in the relation to
the use and definition of transportType and receptively IP-Port-Type TLV,
and should therefore be done before a final IESG decision.