Re: [radext] Proposed new charter text

Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> Thu, 30 April 2015 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE151ACEB2 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 syEqWbHA85rP for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay.restena.lu (smtprelay.restena.lu [IPv6:2001:a18:1::62]) (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 ECE7E1ACEB1 for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aragorn.restena.lu (aragorn.restena.lu [IPv6:2001:a18:1:8::155]) by smtprelay.restena.lu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31D99412DD for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:34:58 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5541DB22.1070406@restena.lu>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:34:58 +0200
From: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: radext@ietf.org
References: <5502B836.5000100@restena.lu>
In-Reply-To: <5502B836.5000100@restena.lu>
OpenPGP: id=AD3091F3AB24E05F4F722C03C0DE6A358A39DC66; url=http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="lwfm6lm73Dg3PwaiXIw6aXa6iiW6LeM0C"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/xOO2jCwZXn_AOWyjw5NCtvnp2Sk>
Subject: Re: [radext] Proposed new charter text
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:35:01 -0000

Hello,

we still don't seem to have agreement on the updated charter text.
Luckily, all the discussions revolved around one single work item, CoA
proxying.

Some folks want the spec to tackle RFC5176's "Authorization Issues"
security consideration, and there are ideas around this floating on the
mailing list. Others just want to solve the routing issue, and leave the
security issues for another document.

From the discussions on the list so far, I'm not seeing a clear
direction, but I also don't want this to hold up the recharter.

So, may I suggest a more general text; and that we leave the exact shape
of the document to the WG process once the document is in-charter and
the individual draft adopted?

My suggestion would be:

> - CoA proxying.  RFC 5176 permits proxying of CoA and Disconnect
> messages, but makes no provisions for how that is done in a roaming
> environment.  This work item will provide descriptions of how to use the
> Operator-Name attribute in a roaming environment to proxy CoA packets. > Depending on whether the document can tackle the security issues
> around CoA as enumerated in RFC5176, the document will either be
> Informational or Standards-Track.

Greetings,

Stefan Winter