IETF Logo Mail Archive

[radext] Comment on draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-05

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 09 April 2013 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 6568421F8EEB; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 05:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWeTe-c6sxyE; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 05:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ea0-x230.google.com (mail-ea0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8615C21F8F1E; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 05:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ea0-f176.google.com with SMTP id h10so2745679eaj.7 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 05:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date :message-id:cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=uDDVf0HHlBnlsGdIU2lTagIwLHH5LvvKf/Ao+8RKHmI=; b=KDy5uzTpUDfrzQ2WemmG2g4NqeyIvr7E807nHCREbQafgYP5of7WNHFvkcRy2JDCs4 En14F48hKWDiSPdEBui2yNa/sSibXyeyG3C9+yc+JR0TVMKHDrtethNakellLVLOtaI0 IU1zwZ+VOAHbMIH6/P2ql7uXu+Dyrd0ixxMomCZY9hlvzroIOzSHMteCnTKMH8APevrp /bUS0lqxK3Zngb1kwZ0+V7Dy71OzJovHxBvMi1O3mYQa4rb2eVJ5Tzr25MA6Jm2Y5ZUH bt9dwJ/rY0g866JXHbSxbCEtm3bv5ZpzZ81qWDV26+Z6e7tRKvLns7xC3zQ0CcH2gozG 8ycg==
X-Received: by 10.14.218.66 with SMTP id j42mr13572784eep.46.1365510726433; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 05:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:39c5:a766:d0ea:341d? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:39c5:a766:d0ea:341d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b5sm6017191eew.16.2013.04.09.05.32.04 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Apr 2013 05:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:32:03 +0300
Message-Id: <97FEA158-451F-4F48-85B3-5763A6026A8F@gmail.com>
To: netmod@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "<radext@ietf.org>" <radext@ietf.org>
Subject: [radext] Comment on draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-05
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2013 12:32:09 -0000

Folks,

AAA-Doctors track on all documents that specify something that
relates to AAA protocols (RADIUS/Diameter). In that light we
also occasionally provide some early comments before the I-Ds
from other WGs enter IETF LC.

Section 3.4 of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-05 defines a data
model for the configuration of the RADIUS client. Has the WG
considered additional transports for RADIUS than the original
UDP? RADEXT has defined TCP (RFC6613), TLS (RFC6614) and is
about to complete DTLS (draft-ietf-radext-dtls-04). There are
implementations already out in the field. I would envision 
different transports would have an impact to the data model
(transport type, possible TLS cipher details and credentials,
etc). Or is there a particular reason for not taking alternative
transports into account?

- Jouni (RADEXT co-chair)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email