Subject: PROTO writeup for RADIUS over TCP document

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:49:42 -0800

PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-radext-tcp-transport

=================================================

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-tcp-transport

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the

      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document

      and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready

      for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Bernard Aboba is the document shepherd.  I have personally reviewed

the document, and believe it is ready for publication as an Experimental

RFC. 

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of

      the interested community and others?  Does the Document Shepherd

      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that

      have been performed?

The document has undergone review within the community of RTLS

implementers, as well as within the RADEXT WG.  It could benefit

from additional review by the transport community. 

   (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document

      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,

      security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,

      internationalization or XML?

This document should be reviewed by the Transport Directorate prior

to publication. 

   (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or

      issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director

      and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he or

      she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has

      concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any event, if

      the interested community has discussed those issues and has

      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail

      those concerns here.

As noted in Section 2.5, there are situations (such as NAS avalanche
restart)

where a proxy implementing RADIUS over TCP/TLS would be unable to keep up

with the UDP packets generated by NAS devices not implementing the 

congestion control algorithm described in RFC 5080 Section 2.2.1.

   (1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind

      this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few

      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested

      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is consensus within the RADEXT WG to publish the document as

an Experimental RFC. 

   (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme

      discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in

      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It

      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is

      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No. 

   (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the

      document satisfies all ID nits?  (See

      http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and

      http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are not

      enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document met all

      formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media

      type and URI type reviews?

idnits is clean:

idnits 2.12.00 

tmp/draft-ietf-radext-tcp-transport-05.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Experimental

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of 

     draft-ietf-radext-status-server is -03, but you're referring to -06.

     (However, the state information for draft-ietf-radext-status-server is

     not up-to-date.  The last update was 2009-02-13)

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

   (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and

      informative?  Are there normative references to documents that are

      not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?

      If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their

      completion?  Are there normative references that are downward

      references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If so, list these downward

      references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure

      for them [RFC3967].

The references in the document have been split into normative and

informative. 

Normative references are all stable documents published as RFCs.

   (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA

      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of

      the document?  If the document specifies protocol extensions, are

      reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries?  Are the

      IANA registries clearly identified?  If the document creates a new

      registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the

      registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?

      Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See

      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document

      describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the

      Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed

      Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA Considerations section exists (section 4).  It requires no

action by IANA. 

   (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the

      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,

      BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an

      automated checker?

Not applicable.

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document

      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document

      Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the

      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval

      announcement contains the following sections:

      Technical Summary

RADIUS has traditionally used UDP as its underlying transport layer, for

reasons described in RFC 2865 Section 2.4.  This document defines RADIUS

over TCP, in order to address handling issues related to RADIUS over TLS

(RTLS).  It is not intended to define TCP as a transport protocol for

RADIUS in the absence of TLS.   

      Working Group Summary

This document is part of a set (including the Status-Server and RTLS

specifications) which together define RADIUS over TLS (RTLS).

This document has completed RADEXT WG last call, with the primary

areas of discussion relating to liveness detection and congestion control. 

      Document Quality

The document has been reviewed by IETF RADEXT WG members. 

RADIUS over TLS/TCP has been implemented by multiple vendors, 

including RADIATOR and FreeRADIUS.  The protocol is currently

the subject of a large scale experiment involving deployment 

by EDUROAM, an educational roaming consortium supporting more

than one million users worldwide.

      Personnel

Bernard Aboba is the document shepherd for this document. 

Dan Romascanu is the responsible AD.