Subject: [radext] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 07:04:04 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext-11: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I fully support Alissa's discussion points and have two more to add:

1) IP-Port-Type TLV only covers UDP, TCP and ICMP. This is not very
future-proof: there are other transport protocols that have ports or
identifiers that may want to be supported in future. Also it is not clear
to me from the document why this information is needed at all in the
described use cases. Therefore I see two possible ways forward: Either
remove the IP-Port-Type TLV or extend it to also cover other cases.

Related to this point I would like to mention that RFC6887 is not
restricted to UDP/TCP and therefore the following sentence in section 2
is not correct:
"Note that the definitions of [...] "internal port", [...] "external
port" [...] are the same as defined in Port Control Protocol (PCP)
[RFC6887]"

2) The IE doctors have provide feedback to IANA that the Information
Elements in this doc are underspecified (not confirm with rules in RFC
7013) and should therefore be not registered.  Addressing this feedback
could lead to a mayor rewrite of this doc, especially in the relation to
the use and definition of transportType and receptively IP-Port-Type TLV,
and should therefore be done before a final IESG decision.

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:55:34 -0400

Hi Mirja,

Hopefully the editors will chime in soon.  One question...

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext/

I don't see why this needs to be future proofed as it is meeting a
current need and the other protocols may not be using RADIUS.  If they
do, an update to this document could easily fix that, while keeping
the document in line with current use cases.  I'm fine with any of
these 3 responses depending on what the working group thinks is best.

> and should therefore be done before a final IESG decision.

If you see the end of the message that went out from IANA, the WG
might be a little confused on order here.  I agree that the WG needs
to address these questions from IANA and it should be done prior to
tomorrow's telechat.  The IANA state shows that an update was posted
and a review is needed.  It would be helpful for the IESG to see the
full discussion if any more has happened outside of the emails from
August 11th.

Thanks,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:23:26 +0200

Hi Kathleen,

see below.

> these 3 responses depending on what the working group thinks is best.

I don't think RADIUS is specified in a way that would only allow it to be 
used for UDP and TCP transmissions. At least PCP is not; see my next 
paragraph in the discuss below.

Further, I don't see a reason for any restrictions here. However, my other 
question is also why is this information needed at all. The use cases in this 
doc gives no explanation why this is needed and what this information is used 
for. If there is no concrete reason to have this information, it should be 
removed.

> full discussion if any more has happened outside of the emails from

I replied to this on the other email. I was not talking about the IANA review 
but the expert review that IANA already requested. This review goes back to 
IANA (and Brian confirmed that they have send it) and IANA should forward it 
to the authors. My whole (other) emails was about the fact that this 
communication is not visible to anybody and I just know about it because I 
happen to talked to Brian.

For this document this is actually important because the feedback says that 
the IEs in this doc are underspecified and cannot be registered as they are. 
There is more detailed feedback but my high level summary would be that the 
underspecification could lead to larger changes.

I guess we could ask Brian or IANA to forward this feedback to the IESG list 
to have a more informed discussion here.

Mirja

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:42:45 -0400

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> question is also why is this information needed at all. The use cases in
> this doc gives no explanation why this is needed and what this information
> is used for. If there is no concrete reason to have this information, it
> should be removed.
>

I understand your point, let's see what the WG responds with.

> I replied to this on the other email. I was not talking about the IANA
> review but the expert review that IANA already requested. This review goes
> back to IANA (and Brian confirmed that they have send it) and IANA should
> forward it to the authors. My whole (other) emails was about the fact that
> this communication is not visible to anybody and I just know about it
> because I happen to talked to Brian.
>

I think they are normally sent to the draft editors as well, so IANA
usually doesn't have to forward them.  If Brian did the review and
could send it to the draft distribution list
([email-masked]), that would be helpful.  This is what
happens for other reviews.

Thank you,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:13:36 -0700

Hi,

Would it be possible to see the IE doctor's feedback? The authors might 
find it useful as well. If it has been distributed already, my apologies 
if I missed it.

regards,
	Jouni

8/17/2016, 7:04 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind kirjoitti:
> I fully support Alissa's discussion points and have two more to add:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext/
>

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:18:31 -0400

Apparently, Brian did the review.  I'm adding him to this thread so he
can send the review to the draft distribution list.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would it be possible to see the IE doctor's feedback? The authors might find
> it useful as well. If it has been distributed already, my apologies if I
> missed it.
>
> regards,
>         Jouni
>
>> I fully support Alissa's discussion points and have two more to
>> add:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext/
>>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen