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

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Would it be possible to see the IE doctor's feedback? The authors might 
find it useful as well. If it has been distributed already, my apologies 
if I missed it.

regards,
	Jouni

8/17/2016, 7:04 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind kirjoitti:
> 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:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext/
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>