IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Fri, 14 October 2016 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
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 76101126579; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 81WYkXuHpR_q; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B6211295CC; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9840D1F70; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:02:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail-server.vmhost2.networkradius.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aYCfg8sOJprQ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:02:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.20.14] (69-196-165-104.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.165.104]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6B481F54; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:02:14 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH4Ai146sv1gvC00zSwwzA7v6+4yJO=fozp7U6nJvvaZ8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:02:13 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6BF99484-6944-4F1D-ABE8-86BDC57C8412@deployingradius.com>
References: <147137412687.22998.17081075232946825763.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHbuEH7+Gw=zDiN66Aydmie2M4dXcVqjLKWHixR7Qe6ECfN9Hg@mail.gmail.com> <D0152C61-D391-482B-BF1E-45180F89DA41@cooperw.in> <EACFFDF5-3974-4778-8EDD-A68410BAD972@gmail.com> <28413_1473165080_57CEB718_28413_354_4_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01F9F38E@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <4DCE81CA-FC1F-4CFF-82E1-135E158087C6@deployingradius.com> <9128_1473174225_57CEDAD1_9128_1350_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01F9F961@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <4B308285-584D-4A53-BCA0-F1EC1F9C3BC9@deployingradius.com> <1813_1473773040_57D7FDEF_1813_3639_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01FAA8D8@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <23CAC502-C1F0-4DD6-AB82-8A38BD6D0B88@deployingradius.com> <32661_1476458174_5800F6BE_32661_2282_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E03D07880@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <02671AAF-B095-42FC-8BD8-37D2C847CD5A@deployingradius.com> <CAHbuEH4Ai146sv1gvC 00zSwwzA7v6+4yJO=fozp7U6nJvvaZ8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/diRum7bw3Y02cwF2ZMoULeXuBpM>
Cc: "draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext@ietf.org>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, "lionel.morand@orange.com" <lionel.morand@orange.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "radext-chairs@ietf.org" <radext-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [radext] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:02:18 -0000

On Oct 14, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems the WG is just down to a preference question as I don't see how there would be conflicts except if different parties defined their own sub-TLVs and they didn't match.  Could that occur?  I have to dig deeper to make sure I'm not missing anything.

  If all TLV allocations go through IANA, then the registration procedure should prevent conflict.

  If the IANA registration procedure is well documented, then that procedure should prevent conflict.

  I don't see a big difference between allowing TLVs to be of data type "integer", "ipv4 address", "sub-TLVs are OK", or "contents to be defined by sub-TLV registry FOO".

  There is simply no way to have any kind of conflict in the allocation.

> For the future, you can ask IANA these sorts of questions via email or at meetings to work through preferences if you are looking for their opinion.  I should have caught that this was an issue and am not sure why I didn't before putting it on a telechat.  So, that was my fault.

  I'm not sure IANA would have an opinion here.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email