Subject: [radext] #9: AD review (technical)

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:24:21 -0000

#9: AD review (technical)
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
 Reporter:  dromasca@…             |       Owner:  aland@…                  
     Type:  defect                 |      Status:  new                      
 Priority:  major                  |   Milestone:  milestone1               
Component:  tcp-transport          |     Version:  1.0                      
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |    Keywords:                           
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
 Date first submitted:   March 9, 2010
 Reference: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2010/msg00249.html

 Please find below the AD review of AD review of
 draft-ietf-radext-tcp-transport-05. I believe that the document will be
 ready for IETF Last Call only after the issues raised in this review are
 addressed.

 The issues are divided into Technical (T) and Editorial (E).

 T1. The document is marked as EXPERIMENTAL. It would be useful if it
 mentions in one of the introductory sections what are the goals and
 limitations (if any) of the experimental deployment and what would be
 the success criteria of the experiment that would allow for taking the
 document to the standards track later.

 T2. Section 2.2:

 >  Since these ports are unused by existing RADIUS implementations, the
    assigned values SHOULD be used as the default ports for RADIUS over
    TCP.

 Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST?

 T3. Section 2.3 needs a complete re-writing:

 > The MIB Module definitions in [RFC4668], [RFC4669], [RFC4670],
    [RFC4671], [RFC4672], and [RFC4673] each contain only one reference
    to UDP.  These references are in the DESCRIPTION field of the MIB
    Module definition, and are in the form of "The UDP port" or "the UDP
    destination port".

 Actually the count is not accurate. 4688 and 4670 have each two MIB
 objects that refer to UDP ports, 4669 and 4671 have none, 4672 and 4673
 have one each, but only in 4672 the port is referred to as UDP port
 (although it is clear from the context that UDP is assumed).

 > Implementations of RADIUS over TCP SHOULD re-use these MIB Modules to
    perform statistics counting for RADIUS over TCP connections.
    However, implementors are warned that there is no way for these MIB
    Modules to distinguish between packets sent over UDP or over TCP
    transport.

 This does not work. One cannot know what current implementations do.
 Some may behave as described here, but other may not and could count
 statistics strictly over UDP as defined in the DESCRIPTION of the MIB
 objects. You cannot count on that the agent implementations will do, so
 there is no interoperability.

 >   Implementations of RADIUS over TCP SHOULD include the protocol (UDP)
    or (TCP) in the radiusAuthServIdent, radiusAuthClientID,
    radiusAuthClientIdentifier, radiusAccServIdent, radiusAccClientID, or
    radiusAccClientIdentifier fields of the MIB Module.  This information
    can help the administrator distinguish capabilities of systems in the
    network.

 This is also broken. First it is a change in the semantics of the
 respective objects. This cannot be done even in a MIB document that
 updates the respective RFCs because of the SMIv2 rules. Then these
 objects are of a syntax of SnmpAdminString - so including the protocol
 is based on non-interoperable heuristics. Last, describing the
 capabilities (UDP, TCP or both) does not indicate what runs and is
 activated at a certain moment, not to speak cannot indicate anything
 about specific sessions between clients and servers.

 The correct solution is for the MIB documents to be updated in the
 future with new MIB objects of appropriate syntax. For the time being
 the only thing that this section should say is that the MIB modules do
 not support RADIUS over TCP and that they will need to be updated in the
 future.

 T4. The following section in 2.6.1 is confusing:

 >  Much of the discussion in this section can be summarized by the
    following requirement.  RADIUS requests MAY be re-transmitted
    verbatim only if the following 5-tuple (Client IP address, Client
    port, Transport Protocol, Server IP address, Server port) remains the
    same.

 Actually this is not a retransmission on the same connection, so I do
 not know why it needs to be mentioned at all. This aparently contradicts
 the first paragraph of 2.6.1 which says 'As TCP is a reliable transport,
 implementations MUST NOT retransmit RADIUS request packets over a given
 TCP connection.'.

 T5. The last paragraph in 2.6.1:

 >   The above requirement is necessary, but not sufficient in all cases.
    Other specifications give additional situations where the packet is
    to be considered as a new request.  Those recommendations MUST also
    be followed.

 Having a MUST requirement over undefined 'other specification' is not
 implementable. I would suggest to either clarify what are these 'other
 specifications' or take this out.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/9>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>

---

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 06:39:34 -0000

#9: AD review (technical)
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
 Reporter:  dromasca@…             |        Owner:  aland@…                  
     Type:  defect                 |       Status:  closed                   
 Priority:  major                  |    Milestone:  milestone1               
Component:  tcp-transport          |      Version:  1.0                      
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |   Resolution:  fixed                    
 Keywords:                         |  
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
Changes (by aland@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 All issues have been addressed in -06

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/9#comment:1>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>