[radext] Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Margaret Cullen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

>
Thank you for your thorough review.

>
> > # Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis-15
> >
> > ### Section 3.2
> >
> > `RadSec clients MUST establish a (D)TLS session immediately upon
> connecting to
> > a new server.` why "immediately" ? Does it mean that they should first
> try with
> > plain RADIUS ? The subsequent paragraphs give some hints, but a PS must
> be
> > crystal clear.
> >
> > ### Section 3.12
> >
> > What is `server IP` ? Please avoid readers guessing that it is "server IP
> > address", especially in a PS. Also occuring in other places.
> >


This are both good points. Addressing these issues would make these
sections clearer. I’ll confer with the other authors, fix these items, and
let you know when we have a version that fixes them.

I will also make a GitHub issue (or issues) for your comments and we will
review them.

Margaret


> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ## COMMENTS (non-blocking)
> >
> > ### Section 3
> >
> > s/Client implementations *SHOULD implement both, but* MUST implement at
> least
> > one of RADIUS/TLS or RADIUS/DTLS./Client implementations MUST implement
> at
> > least one of RADIUS/TLS or RADIUS/DTLS./ Clearer and avoiding a SHOULD.
> >
> > ### Section 3.1
> >
> > The legend of table 1 is rather useless ;-) also use it in the text.
> >
> > ### Section 3.3.1 (and others)
> >
> > A lot of "SHOULD" without any guidance... Why not "MUST" ? See also
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/
> >
> > What is a source IP address as opposed to "IP address" in `For clients
> > configured by their source IP address` ? Please remove "source".
> >
> > ### Section 3.5
> >
> > Again a "SHOULD" without guidance to the implementers in `RadSec clients
> and
> > servers SHOULD implement session resumption.` ....
> >
> > ### Section 6.4
> >
> > Unsure whether this section is required. Nice experience return by early
> > implementers probably, but unsure whether it belongs to a PS.
> >
> > ### Section 6.5.1
> >
> > s/IP address version (IPv4 or IPv6)/IP *protocol* version (IPv4 or IPv6)/
> >
> > ### Section 9
> >
> > Please add a URI to the registry, e.g.,
> >
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml
> >
> > Also, it seems that the format of the bullet list is broken (at least on
> my
> > browser).
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > radext mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>