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

[<[e-mail]>]

Re-,

Because "transport port" may be (mis)understood by transmission people as being a transmission port. 

"transport" is one of these overloaded terms. See for example the ongoing efforts about Transport SDN & cie.

Cheers, 
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : mercredi 12 octobre 2016 16:21
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : The IESG; [e-mail]; MORAND
> Lionel IMT/OLN; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [radext] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-ip-
> port-radius-ext-11: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> I’m okay with that. But why does „transport port“ not clarify this
> confusion. Or maybe it should be „transport protocol port“ then?
> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> > Am 12.10.2016 um 16:15 schrieb [e-mail]:
> >
> > Hi Mirja,
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Envoyé : mercredi 12 octobre 2016 15:55
> >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; The IESG
> >> Cc : [e-mail]; MORAND Lionel
> IMT/OLN;
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Objet : Re: [radext] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-ip-
> >> port-radius-ext-11: (with DISCUSS)
> >>
> >> Hi Mohamed,
> >>
> >> thanks for these changes. Using the IANA protocol number seems to be
> the
> >> right thing to do!
> >
> > [Med] Great!
> >
> >>
> >> One tiny additional question/comment: the term "IP port" or "IP
> transport
> >> port" seems a little weird (because ports are in the transport header
> and
> >> not
> >> in the IP header). Is it important to use this term to indicate that
> it's
> >> IP
> >> underneath or could you simply speak about "transport ports" instead?
> >
> > [Med] We used "IP" on purpose to avoid that the term "port" is
> misunderstood as referring to a physical port. Using simply "transport
> port" does not help either to clarify that confusion. This is why we went
> for explicitly using "IP xxx" to make it clear we are dealing with port
> numbers that are used by protocols transported over IP.
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Mirja
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29.09.2016 08:44, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>> Dear Mirja,
> >>>
> >>> Please see inline.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Med
> >>>
> >>>> -----Message d'origine-----
> >>>> De : radext [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Mirja
> >>>> Kuehlewind
> >>>> Envoyé : mercredi 17 août 2016 16:04
> >>>> À : The IESG
> >>>> Cc : [e-mail]; MORAND Lionel
> >> IMT/OLN;
> >>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>> Objet : [radext] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-ip-
> >> port-
> >>>> radius-ext-11: (with DISCUSS)
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> [Med] This is a fair comment. FWIW, only TCP/UDP/ICMP are covered
> >> initially in the draft because those are currently the only ones
> supported
> >> by widely deployed CGNs.
> >>>
> >>> Also it is not clear
> >>>> to me from the document why this information is needed at all in the
> >>>> described use cases.
> >>>
> >>> [Med] Because ports are bound to a transport protocol (e.g., of the
> port
> >> forwarding in Section 4.1.3). In modern NATs, when an
> (explicit/implicit)
> >> mapping is created, a port is reserved only for a given transport
> protocol
> >> not for all transport protocols.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore I see two possible ways forward: Either
> >>>> remove the IP-Port-Type TLV or extend it to also cover other cases.
> >>>
> >>> [Med] The new version of the draft extends the TLV to be applicable to
> >> other transport protocols. We are using the IANA protocol numbers
> >> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-
> numbers.xhtml).
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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]"
> >>>
> >>> [Med] This is not an issue given that the new version of the draft is
> >> not restricted to TCP/UDP.
> >>>