[radext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-06: (with COMMENT)
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 16 August 2018 14:24 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietf.org
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B88130E8C; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy@ietf.org, Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, radext-chairs@ietf.org, stefan.winter@restena.lu, radext@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153442946379.12176.4452818330392864054.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:24:23 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/TANsJCLUz4-fNT4Zt3yQmjBJElk>
Subject: [radext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:24:24 -0000
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-06: No Objection 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-coa-proxy/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm clearing my DISCUSS based on discussion over email and in the telechat. I am happy to leave the outcome to Benjamin's discretion. I'm including the original text below for reference: <old-discuss> (This is a procedural DISCUSS. Hopefully it can be resolved easily, but I do think it needs to be resolved prior to publication..) This draft is standards track, yet it primarily serves to extend RFC 5176. That RFC is informational. The shepherd writeup argues that this is okay because it seems like 5176 should have been standards track. But the applicability statement RFC 5176 explains why it was informational, and the reasons seem convincing. Therefore I do not think it is appropriate to publish this draft as Standards Track. I think it would be fine to progress it as Informational (or even Experimental) if it included an applicability statement explaining why in order to avoid the appearance of a standard masquerading as an Informational RFC. </old-discuss> Thanks for a readable and understandable drafts. I have some additional comments that do not rise to the level of a DISCUSS Substantive Comments: - I support Adam's DISCUSS point concerning the security properties of Operator-NAS-Identifier. But I will let that play out in Adam's thread. §3.1 and §3,3: Do the normative changes to Access-Request and Accounting-Request mean that this draft needs to update documents other than just RFC 5176? Editorial Comments: - The abstract and introduction explain how this draft updates 5176, which is good. However, they avoid using the explicit term-of-art "Updates RFC 5176". Doing so would help make things more explicit. (The RFC style guide recommends doing this at least in the abstract.) - Please expand PPTP and L2TP on first mention. §3.1: I suspect some of the normative keywords in this section refer to previously existing requirements rather than new requirements. If so, they should not be capitalized except in literal quotes. §6: I think it would be helpful to mention the discussion in §4.3 in the security considerations. §7: It would be helpful for the IANA considerations to briefly summarize the new attributes, so that a reader that started out reading the IANA considerations doesn't have to flip back to §3.3 just to find out what they are.
- [radext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-iet… Ben Campbell