Re: [radext] [IANA #935820] Protocol Action: 'RADIUS Extensions for IP Port Configuration and Reporting' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16.txt)

Hi Amanda,

Thanks for the message. We've just made changes in
Section 7.3 according to the suggestion.

If the updates OK, should we upload a new revision
(17.txt) at this time?

Regards
Dean

> -----Original Message-----
> From: radext [mailto:radext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Amanda Baber
> via RT
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 6:49 AM
> Cc: draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext.all@ietf.org
> Subject: [radext] [IANA #935820] Protocol Action: 'RADIUS Extensions
> for IP Port Configuration and Reporting' to Proposed Standard (draft-
> ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16.txt)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri Nov 11 15:08:15 2016, aland@deployingradius.com wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Dean cheng <dean.cheng@huawei.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The "type" field is 8-bit long so there are possibly 256 values.
> > > RFC6929 does not say the value "0" is "Unassigned"
> > > or "Reserved". In the Radius registry, the value "0" for attribute
> > > 241.1 is "Reserved". For consistency, I'd suggest  to follow the
> > > same. The maximum value is 256.
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6929#section-10
> >
> > Allocation of an Attribute Type value "TYPE" using the new "Extended
> > Type" format results in allocation of 255 new Attribute Type values
> of
> > format "TYPE.1" through "TYPE.255".
> >
> > i.e. zero is not for allocation.
> >
> > > Note each TLV in Section 7.3 may have more than one parent Radius
> > > attributes (e.g., 241.TBD1.1 and 241.TBD2.1). Therefore I'm not
> sure
> > > if these TLVs should go to Radius registry (Section 7.3 only
> > > requests for "allocation" for TLV types).
> > >
> > > If need to define these TLV types in the registry, it must say that
> > > these TLVs are independent and may associate with more than one
> > > attributes; but I don’t see any example like
> > >   this in current registry.
> > >
> > > Alan - what is your opinion?
> >
> > This is a new thing to RADIUS.
> >
> > I suggest creating a new RADIUS TLV registry:
> >
> > name: RADIUS IP Port Configuration and Reporting TLVs
> >
> > contents: all of the TLVs which have more than one parent.
> >
> > Then, each parent TLV can be marked as NOT having child attributes.
> > Instead, they should be marked as using the new registry for their
> > children.
> 
> Is this in addition to the action in Section 7.3, or instead of the
> action in Section 7.3?
> 
> If the latter, please send us a new version of the section. It should
> tell us to create a registry and provide the following:
> 
> - the name of the registry
> -  the registration procedure for the registry (see RFC 5226)
> - the initial contents of the registry (including a definition for
> value 0 and the maximum value)
> 
> For a recent example of a document that creates a registry, see
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7361#section-7.2 or
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7688#section-6.2.1.
> 
> thanks,
> Amanda
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

Re: [radext] [IANA #935820] Protocol Action: 'RADIUS Extensions for IP Port Configuration and Reporting' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16.txt)

Attachment: Diff draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16_txt - draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-17_txt.htm

Attachment: draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-17.txt

Attachment: draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-17.xml