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,

OK, I'll take a look of the new registries, and send
you back the feedback.

Please send us once you are done (I'm in California 
time zone). 

For the draft itself, do we need to make any more 
changes - e.g., in the two examples you sent to us
below, the RFC7361 has text in Section 7.2 to 
reference RFC7361 itself (RFC7688 has similar reference), 
if we want to follow the same, we need to know the 
RFC number now?? 

Thanks
Dean

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amanda Baber via RT [mailto:drafts-approval@iana.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 4:25 PM
> Cc: draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext.all@ietf.org
> Subject: [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 Dean,
> 
> I checked with the RFC Editor, and they said that this is a good time
> for the authors to upload a new revision. We can complete these actions
> before this has been uploaded, though. I'll contact you within a few
> hours to ask you to review the registries and confirm that everything
> was completed correctly.
> 
> thanks,
> Amanda
> 
> On Mon Nov 14 18:20:41 2016, dean.cheng@huawei.com wrote:
> > 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
> 
> 