Re: [radext] Proposed new charter text

[Peter Deacon <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015, Alan DeKok wrote:

> On Mar 22, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Peter Deacon <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but no.  A CoA or 
> Disconnect-Request packet addresses *one* session with *one* request. 
> Nothing in RFC 5176 suggests otherwise.

RFC5176 Section 2.3 explains atomicity requirements while CoA or DM 
requests match multiple sessions.

>>  Sufficient / required session identifying attributes varies between
>>  NASes and sometimes across access technologies within the same NAS.
>>  There are no further constraints expressed in draft on both required /
>>  acceptable session identifying attributes and method of initial
>>  authentication proxy (realm based or other policy based)

>  Because the draft doesn’t address session identification.  It just 
> addresses proxying.  RFC 5176 addresses session identification.  Badly, 
> IMHO, but that’s the WG consensus.  No one could agree on a solution, so 
> it was left pretty much the same as RFC 3576.

This an important reason why I believe state will be required in some 
cases to facilitate correlation in the event insufficient information is 
available to do so.

I believe the mechanism to support can be fully opaque like 
Operator-NAS-Identifier and fully implementation dependant I advocate only 
enabling communication channel exist.

I believe Operator-NAS-Identifier's constraints make it insufficient for 
this role otherwise it would be sufficient.  Section 3.1 20 octets 
language is insufficient and automatic removal of NAS identifying 
attributes may be counterproductive.

I do not advocate for fixing Dynamic authorization or session identifying 
attributes.  I do not advocate for fixing Proxy.  In previous remarks 
possible courses of action were enumerated to assist in demonstrating why 
state is needed by implementations.

With regards to CoA draft I would support either a separate State 
attribute or loosening constraints of Operator-NAS-Identifier.

Regardless of concerns specific to CoA draft appreciate any consideration 
of my recommendation.

regards,
Peter