Subject: [radext] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 03:33:04 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: 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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext/

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

Maybe it is just me, but I found that the idea that most subattributes
are the same size, but right aligned to be wasteful. Is this a common
design pattern for Radius?

I am agreeing with Alissa on privacy concerns.

On page 12:

      IP-Port-Int-IPv6-Addr TLV

         This TLV contains an IPv4 address that is associated with the

Typo: should be IPv6?

         internal IP port number contained in the IP-Port-Int-Port TLV.
         For IPv6 network, either this TLV or IP-Port-Local-Id TLV must
         be included as part of the IP-Port-Forwarding-Map Attribute.
         Refer to Section 3.2.5.