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

From: "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:53:51 -0700

Suresh Krishnan 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Why are the the uint8 and unit16 based types getting stuffed into 32
bit fields inside the TLVs? This feels like a complete waste. Is there
any specific reason this is required?

* Does the IP-Port-Limit include the count of ports already allocated
through the IP-Port-Forwarding-Map or not?

* I agree with Alissa's DISCUSS points about the lack of error handling
and the privacy issues and Mirja's DISCUSS point about restricting
transport protocols to TCP and UDP.

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:33:53 +0200

> any specific reason this is required?

  The limited nature of RADIUS data types.  This behaviour is mandated by RFC 6158

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6158#appendix-A.2.1

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:45:06 +0000

Hi Alan,

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6158#appendix-A.2.1

Thanks for the pointer. Good to know. Maybe a reference to this RFC would be 
in order?

Regards
Suresh