[radext] Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Éric,

thank you for your review.

A very quick response to address only one minor issue (the last in your review).

The bullet list is indeed broken in the draft on the datatracker, but it is not broken on github:
https://github.com/radext-wg/draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis/blob/main/draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis.md

Perhaps this is an issue with kramdownrfc (I don't know), but anyway, there is a PR to fix it (not yet merged):
https://github.com/radext-wg/draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis/pull/155

Regards,
Valery.




> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis-15: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> # Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis-15
> CC @evyncke
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
> 
> Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (super easy to address), some
> non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for
> my own education).
> 
> Special thanks to Valery Smyslov for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
> the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.
> 
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of
> https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by
> a tool to create github issues.
> 
> ## DISCUSS (blocking)
> 
> As noted in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/,
> a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I
> really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be
> convinced otherwise.
> 
> ### Section 3.2
> 
> `RadSec clients MUST establish a (D)TLS session immediately upon connecting to
> a new server.` why "immediately" ? Does it mean that they should first try with
> plain RADIUS ? The subsequent paragraphs give some hints, but a PS must be
> crystal clear.
> 
> ### Section 3.12
> 
> What is `server IP` ? Please avoid readers guessing that it is "server IP
> address", especially in a PS. Also occuring in other places.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ## COMMENTS (non-blocking)
> 
> ### Section 3
> 
> s/Client implementations *SHOULD implement both, but* MUST implement at least
> one of RADIUS/TLS or RADIUS/DTLS./Client implementations MUST implement at
> least one of RADIUS/TLS or RADIUS/DTLS./ Clearer and avoiding a SHOULD.
> 
> ### Section 3.1
> 
> The legend of table 1 is rather useless ;-) also use it in the text.
> 
> ### Section 3.3.1 (and others)
> 
> A lot of "SHOULD" without any guidance... Why not "MUST" ? See also
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/
> 
> What is a source IP address as opposed to "IP address" in `For clients
> configured by their source IP address` ? Please remove "source".
> 
> ### Section 3.5
> 
> Again a "SHOULD" without guidance to the implementers in `RadSec clients and
> servers SHOULD implement session resumption.` ....
> 
> ### Section 6.4
> 
> Unsure whether this section is required. Nice experience return by early
> implementers probably, but unsure whether it belongs to a PS.
> 
> ### Section 6.5.1
> 
> s/IP address version (IPv4 or IPv6)/IP *protocol* version (IPv4 or IPv6)/
> 
> ### Section 9
> 
> Please add a URI to the registry, e.g.,
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml
> 
> Also, it seems that the format of the bullet list is broken (at least on my
> browser).
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]