Re: [radext] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:24:20AM -0400, Alan DeKok wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Yes, but as you allude to below, this document depends on 5176. Given that it is an extension to 5176,  I’d say that it effectively incorporates 5176 by reference.
> 
>   Which means what?  That this document is really part of 5176, and that the caveats given in Section 1.1 should be applied, even though they don't apply to this document?
> 
>   I'm not sure I follow that logic.  "IF A then B" means that if A is false, then B is also false.
> 
> >> Can we have a standards track document which depends on an informational document?
> > 
> > There’s the problem. According to RFC 2026, we cannot. The IESG can make exceptions under specific circumstances (see RFCs 3967 and 4897). The point of my DISCUSS is to force discussion of whether it is appropriate to make an exception for this draft.
> 
>   We already have RFC 5080 (proposed standard) which updates RFC 2866 (informational).
> 
>   Even more strongly, RFC 5080 points out errors in both the spec *and* in implementations.
> 
>   Which means that RFC 5080 took the opposite decision of 5176.  It marked existing implementations as non-compliant.  The reasons for that decision are historical.
> 
> > My initial thoughts is that it is not appropriate to do so. This draft is a relatively small extension to 5176. It might be different if this draft incidentally depended on 5176, but in this case the informational RFC is the entire foundation of this draft.
> > 
> > If it’s important to make this draft standards track, then we should look into promoting 5176 to standards track.
> 
>   Along with RFC 2866 (RADIUS accounting), RFC 2867, RFC 2868, RC 5997, RFC 6613 (TCP transport), RFC 6614 (TLS transport), and RFC 7360 (DTLS transport).  And probably more.  All of those documents are informational.  There have been discussions over the years about making them all standards track.
> 
>   However, the sad truth is that the RADIUS WG is essentially dead at this point.  There is little interest in revisiting 20 year-old specs, just to have them promoted to standards track.  And even if they were made standards track, the consensus has been that little of the content would change.
> 
>   As for this document, the WG was in favour of making it standards track, and it had support from the previous AD.  Exceptions have been made in the past in similar circumstances.
> 
>   I'm arguing this point simply because I'm not convinced by the counter-arguments.

Ultimately this is a decision for the IESG to make; it's seeming like we'll
need to have a conversation on tomorrow's telechat.

-Benjamin