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

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Hopefully the editors will chime in soon.  One question...

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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. 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.

I don't see why this needs to be future proofed as it is meeting a
current need and the other protocols may not be using RADIUS.  If they
do, an update to this document could easily fix that, while keeping
the document in line with current use cases.  I'm fine with any of
these 3 responses depending on what the working group thinks is best.

>
> 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.

If you see the end of the message that went out from IANA, the WG
might be a little confused on order here.  I agree that the WG needs
to address these questions from IANA and it should be done prior to
tomorrow's telechat.  The IANA state shows that an update was posted
and a review is needed.  It would be helpful for the IESG to see the
full discussion if any more has happened outside of the emails from
August 11th.

Thanks,
Kathleen

>
>
>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen