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

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Did finally send someone the review to the right people or should I ping Brian (again)?

That would be helpful, I believe we are still waiting for the review.

Thanks,
Kathleen

>
> Mirja
>
>
>> Am 17.08.2016 um 19:18 schrieb Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>:
>>
>> Apparently, Brian did the review.  I'm adding him to this thread so he
>> can send the review to the draft distribution list.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Kathleen
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Would it be possible to see the IE doctor's feedback? The authors might find
>>> it useful as well. If it has been distributed already, my apologies if I
>>> missed it.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>        Jouni
>>>
>>> 8/17/2016, 7:04 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind kirjoitti:
>>>>
>>>> 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:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext/
>>>>
>>>> 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. Also it is not clear
>>>> to me from the document why this information is needed at all in the
>>>> described use cases. Therefore I see two possible ways forward: Either
>>>> remove the IP-Port-Type TLV or extend it to also cover other cases.
>>>>
>>>> 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]"
>>>>
>>>> 2) The IE doctors have provide feedback to IANA that the Information
>>>> Elements in this doc are underspecified (not confirm with rules in RFC
>>>> 7013) and should therefore be not registered.  Addressing this feedback
>>>> could lead to a mayor rewrite of this doc, especially in the relation to
>>>> the use and definition of transportType and receptively IP-Port-Type TLV,
>>>> and should therefore be done before a final IESG decision.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen