Re: [radext] [IANA #935820] Protocol Action: 'RADIUS Extensions for IP Port Configuration and Reporting' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16.txt)

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

  I would like to draw attention to ordering issues between these updates and the RADIUS "data types" document.  The data types document does not include these attributes, but this document has been approved for publication.  And the updates for this document do not contain data types, as required by the new IANA rules in the "data types" document.

  I believe that we can proceed with all updates.  Document ordering is important here.

  Given that this document is further ahead in the publication process, my suggestion is to proceed with this document, and with updating the registries as suggested here.

  Once that's done, I can revise the "data types" document to include data types for these attributes.  At that point, all subsequent allocations from the RADIUS type registry should be paused, and should wait for the "data types" document to be published, and the registry updated.  When that work is finished, the RADIUS type registry can be re-opened for updates, with the caveat that the "data types" requirements now apply.

> On Nov 14, 2016, at 9:12 PM, Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]> wrote:

> ACTION 2:
> 
> We've added the following entries to the Radius Attribute Types registry:
> 
> 241.5    IP-Port-Limit-Info    [RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16, Section 3.1.1]
> 241.6    IP-Port-Range    [RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16, Section 3.1.2]
> 241.7    IP-Port-Forwarding-Map    [RFC-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-16, Section 3.1.3]

  As these attributes are of type TLV, there would normally be sub-attributes listed here.  Instead, we're using a sub-registry.  But that registry isn't referenced in these attributes.

  It would be good to add a cross-reference from these attributes to the new "RADIUS IP Port Configuration and Reporting TLVs".  I'm not sure how that would best be done...

  Alan DeKok.