Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-03
Dean cheng <dean.cheng@huawei.com> Tue, 31 March 2015 18:50 UTC
Return-Path: <dean.cheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E271ACEDD for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 G2vBkftMnFQ8 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59E981ACEDB for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BQX47233; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:49:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.212.94.49) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:49:57 +0100
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.13]) by SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.137]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:49:51 -0700
From: Dean cheng <dean.cheng@huawei.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>, "lionel.morand@orange.com" <lionel.morand@orange.com>
Thread-Topic: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-03
Thread-Index: AQHQa9io3cIZrfp3bEKyjtwpIkzi1J027lAA
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:49:50 +0000
Message-ID: <DC7880973D477648AC15A3BA66253F686E6F5BEA@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <10094_1427820685_551AD08D_10094_7330_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36EEF695D@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <7BD5C839-E2F6-410D-A8A4-F16ADD5B1C02@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <7BD5C839-E2F6-410D-A8A4-F16ADD5B1C02@deployingradius.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.213.48.201]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/eg6_ZWn39iyGsl_JcDXN9Ca5m_s>
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, "radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-03
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:50:03 -0000
Hello Alan, Thanks for your comments, and we'll take care of them in the next revision. Regards Dean > -----Original Message----- > From: radext [mailto:radext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan DeKok > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:32 AM > To: lionel.morand@orange.com > Cc: radext@ietf.org; radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext- > 03 > > I'm not sure what Section 3.1.1 is for. It shouldn't be needed. The > document does NOT define a new extended type. It defines a new RADIUS > attribute. That attribute is allocated from the extended type space. > > My $0.02 is to remove Section 3.1.1, and all references to it. Instead, > just say: > > 3.1.2. IP-Port-Limit Attribute > > This attribute is of Extended-Type, and contains a set of embedded TLVs ... > > Also, IANA should assign values. There's no need to call them out: > > Type: > > TBA1 - Extended-Type-1 (241), Extended-Type-2 (242), Extended- > Type-3 (243), or Extended-Type-4 (244) per [RFC6929]. > > > Just replace that with: > > Type: > > TBA1 > > > It could be clearer that the same set of TLVs can be contained within the > encapsulating attribute. This means (e.g.) that IANA must allocate *multiple* > attributes, e.g. > > 241.33.1 IP-Port-Type TLV inside of IP-Port-Limit > 241.34.1 P-Port-Type TLV inside of IP-Port-Forwarding-Map Attribute > > etc. The IANA section isn't clear to me, either. e.g. > > o TBA1 (refer to Section 3.1.1): This value is for the Radius Type > field and should be allocated from the number space of Extended- > Type-1 (241), Extended-Type-2 (242), Extended-Type-3 (243), or > Extended-Type-4 (244) per [RFC6929]. > > o TBA2 (refer to Section 3.1.1): This value is for the Extended-Type > field and should be allocated from the Short Extended Space per > [RFC6929]. > > > That's unnecessary, and should be deleted. > > o TBA3 (refer to Section 3.2.1): This value is for the Type field of > IP-Port-Type TLV. It should be allocated as TLV data type. It is > within the TBA2 container and it extends the attribute tree as > TBA1.TBA2.TBA3.[...]. Also, this value uniquely refers to IPFIX > Element ID transportType (TBAx1). > > Just say something like "TBA3: IP-Port-Type allocated from within the short > extended space". > > The reference to IPFix should specify an IANA action: > > Add a note for that attribute, saying that this attribute contains data > from IPFix Element ID transportType TBAx1" > > If all of the TLVs can be used in all of the attributes, then the allocation > of the TLVs should be done for the *first* attribute. i.e. IP-Port-Type is a > sub-TLV of IP-Port-Limit, and should be assigned the number "TBA3.1". It's OK > to manually allocate numbers where they're TLVs, and not been allocated before. > > The document should *also* tell IANA to prohibit allocation of TLVs under > the IP-Port-Forwarding-Map, etc. attributes. And note that those attributes > are all of type TLV, with TLVs defined by the IP-Port-Limit attribute. > > That's it for now... > > Also, the document contains many data types which are explicitly forbidden > by RFC 6929. 8-bit, 16-bit, etc. While I know that these are in IPFIX, I > wouldn't recommend using them here. They should all be moved to "integer" > data types, with a note that the bits unused by IPFIX *must* be zero. > > > On Mar 31, 2015, at 12:51 PM, <lionel.morand@orange.com> > <lionel.morand@orange.com> wrote: > > > During the RADEXT session at IETF92, the authors of draft-ietf-radext-ip- > port-radius-ext-03 have asked for a Working Group Last Call. > > > > This email officially starts a Working Group Last Call for the > > following document > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-03 > > > > Please respond to this email to support the document and/or send comments by > 2015-04-13. > > > > In addition, following the strategy for promoting compliance with the IPR > disclosure rules (RFC6702), the chairs would like to check whether there are > claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document that need to be > disclosed. Therefore, the following questions are addressed to the WG and > Especially Authors and Contributors of the draft: > > > > Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to > > draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-03? If so, has this IPR been > > disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, > > 3669, and 5378 for more details.) > > > > If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document, please > reply to this email message regardless of whether or not you are personally > aware of any relevant IPR. We might not be able to advance this document to > the next stage until we have received a reply from each author and listed > contributor. > > > > If you are on the RADEXT WG email list but are not an author or listed > contributor for this document, you are reminded of your opportunity for a > voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP 79. Please do not reply unless you want > to make such a voluntary disclosure. > > > > Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at > <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>. > > > > Regards, > > > > Lionel & Stefan > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ___________________________________________________ > > > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, > > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message > > par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les > pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or > > privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be > distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > radext mailing list > > radext@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext > > _______________________________________________ > radext mailing list > radext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
- [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-ip-p… lionel.morand
- Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-… Sam Hartman
- Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-… Alan DeKok
- Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-… Dean cheng
- Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-… Dean cheng
- Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-… Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)
- Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-… Dean cheng
- Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-… Alan DeKok
- Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-… Dean cheng
- Re: [radext] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-… lionel.morand