Subject: [radext] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 12:43:11 -0800

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for positioning this as Experimental and for writing sections 2
and 3: they cleared up any concerns I had.

In section 3 you say:
   Instead, the CoA client MUST send a CoA-Request
   packet containing session identification attributes, along with
   Service-Type = Additional-Authorization, and a State attribute.
   Implementations not supporting fragmentation will respond with a CoA-
   NAK, and an Error-Cause of Unsupported-Service.
Since this is not new behaviour (i.e. an implementation that is not part
of this experiment will follow this behaviour according to previous
specifications), a reference would be nice. Perhaps...
s/the CoA client MUST/according to [RFCfoo] the CoA client will/

---

From: Alejandro Perez Mendez <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:15:34 +0100

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation/

Hi Adrian,

thanks for the comment. It makes total sense.
We will do that when we are requested to produce a new version.

Regards,
Alejandro