Re: [radext] Review request for draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius

" Yu Fu " <eleven711711@foxmail.com> Tue, 22 January 2019 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <eleven711711@foxmail.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 5A925130E9F for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:01:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.768
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=foxmail.com
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 U42m3r2pO-Lp for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:01:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpbgau2.qq.com (smtpbgau2.qq.com [54.206.34.216]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E86E9130E8E for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:01:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foxmail.com; s=s201512; t=1548144097; bh=AnTz3iZOZaGzpHTSooenUHikYiUNh1aSSYtyJ/djb5o=; h=In-Reply-To:References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:Message-ID; b=Hn0klm+prv/mLney246ZKxsukd/ZcDml/XR2PVYftRohkx/6GOhGrOi30YMw4xUx1 B6k7qn0Vvzk2Iwu8G9me0jO0svS5Omi6B9ew45ASUUV37pwnlloLbTVMGX2VFq6vL5 SZBo/JQ8oOZnQssWh3ZW17KjFxagrH12UJwSN65s=
X-QQ-FEAT: 3ZJ6AZ1/83Ial4Nqnr+l0x106aMnLFuoEduH7e4aT/5FRYf4SeDrpxvXkMOH/ bYaBl5YOidjBXlumUby5APb8oGaeZNKRHj/5QvSunq4UZL2kiPVpYKhamoABH/j5+zkWZMI 5eaXLG9Lnt87tPp4buqV/AHJdSU1g0u41JxkOClShHlk7+6/36rGhvdf1JCZ/ub6R6jlm9g OOOq9JJOhhHrvOc4+c7MKQSpCPjW811E9oYtanUDHBYGBB5sFKGj/j+itqJzZkgyo+s3l5E I/aVvxDgLzXK8mLJeetAwZudlJjDzBTbBqSnMzWdj6QuO52LriOKpcLRM=
X-QQ-SSF: 00000000000000F000000000000000Z
X-HAS-ATTACH: no
X-QQ-BUSINESS-ORIGIN: 2
X-Originating-IP: 202.45.191.87
In-Reply-To: <8590fa3f-b179-2910-4034-b22ac858c786@restena.lu>
References: <0E3D879F-E131-47FE-A5E7-CC700F04A51B@tsinghua.edu.cn> <dc19f322-e4d1-31cf-6f9a-bc12010780cd@restena.lu> <8590fa3f-b179-2910-4034-b22ac858c786@restena.lu>
X-QQ-STYLE:
X-QQ-mid: webmail9t1548144096t9756732
From: Yu Fu <eleven711711@foxmail.com>
To: Winter Stefan <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius <draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius.chairs" <draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius.chairs@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_5C46CDE0_0B46AD18_74CEF88C"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:01:36 +0800
X-Priority: 3
Message-ID: <tencent_D4E20261F21CAEAF791788DB4EB52EAB9607@qq.com>
X-QQ-MIME: TCMime 1.0 by Tencent
X-Mailer: QQMail 2.x
X-QQ-Mailer: QQMail 2.x
X-QQ-ReplyHash: 1848737417
X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520
Received: from qq.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.qq.com (ESMTP) with SMTP id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:01:37 +0800 (CST)
Feedback-ID: webmail:foxmail.com:bgforeign:bgforeign2
X-QQ-Bgrelay: 1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/oPuFNEgAcBmhVkbx5A7O4-D2Ak4>
Subject: Re: [radext] Review request for draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:01:47 -0000

Hi Stefan, 



Thank you very much for your comments.



We have added a paragraph at the end of section 4 to clarify your questions in the 18 version.


Please see the updated version as below:


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius/  


Hope the updated version could answer your questions.


Comments are also welcomed.


BR
Yu







------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "Winter Stefan"<stefan.winter@restena.lu>;
Date:  Mon, Nov 12, 2018 08:29 PM
To:  "radext@ietf.org"<radext@ietf.org>;
Cc:  "draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius"<draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius@ietf.org>; 
Subject:  Re: Review request for draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius



Hello,

and here is a quick question to begin with: the document states that the
attributes can occur in an Accounting-Request packet. However, nowhere
in the document is the corresponding semantics of that transmission defined.

I.e. why would a BNG or other RADIUS Client send this in an
Accounting-Request? What would it want to achieve? And how does the
RADIUS server react if it gets conflicting information there (say, IP
addresses in the sub-TLVs differ in the Accounting-Request from what was
sent in the preceding Access-Accept)?

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

Am 12.11.18 um 13:25 schrieb Stefan Winter:
> Hello radext,
>
> we have received a request for review of an I-D from the softwire
> working group, please see below.
>
> I would appreciate if you could take a few moments of your time to
> review this document and respond here to the working group, with the
> draft's mail address in cc.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Stefan Winter
>
> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
>
> We have the following wg document, RADIUS Attributes for Address plus
> Port (A+P) based Software Mechanisms.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius/
>
> There has been a lot of work on getting draft ready for publication from
> the opinion of softwire wg. However, because there are several new
> attributes and a lot of sub-TLVs, we think we need to get RADEXT to help
> review, before we advance this doc to IESG.
>