Re: [radext] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org> Wed, 15 August 2018 11:45 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@freeradius.org>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD106127148; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 04:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UwASFgl8BhVI; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 04:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A76126DBF; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 04:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.46.58] (198-84-237-221.cpe.teksavvy.com [198.84.237.221]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15B7C4DB; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 11:45:14 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D6F3E677-762C-4078-877C-97793AC60838"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>
In-Reply-To: <153430309790.27225.13672171828804687460.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 07:45:13 -0400
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy@ietf.org, Winter Stefan <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, radext-chairs@ietf.org, radext@ietf.org
Message-Id: <4D83C0DB-8A53-408D-9CDE-D4B11D27DD30@freeradius.org>
References: <153430309790.27225.13672171828804687460.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/cbxdUQxCeae7zZvzQVO3OJ-U6-c>
Subject: Re: [radext] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 11:45:20 -0000

On Aug 14, 2018, at 11:18 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> This draft is standards track, yet it primarily serves to extend RFC 5176.

  By adding new capabilities which are not implemented anywhere.

> 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.

  Those reasons apply to RFC 5176.  They don't apply to this document.

  Can we have a standards track document which defines *new* capabilities?  Capabilities which do not affect any existing implementation or deployment?

  Can we have a standards track document which depends on an informational document?

> 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.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (My review is not yet complete; I wanted to get the DISUSS point out with as
> much discussion time as possible. I expect to follow up with an update sometime
> before the telechat.)
> 
>