Subject: [AAA-DOCTORS] Fwd: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:20:16 +0100

Dear AAA doctors,

I updated my DISCUSS with the latest information. See below
Regarding this COMMENT

    Also, it would be helpful to be explicit about the value of the
    Service-Type attribute in Access-Requests (I am assuming that this
    is no longer "Call-Check", since the User-Password attribute is
    included in the Access-Request). 

I believe that the AAA doctors should give clear guidelines to the 
draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib authors regarding the content of 
the Service-Type.
If we can't, I propose not to insist on this issue.
This is the reason why this is a COMMENT and not a DISCUSS.

Feedback?

Regards, Benoit

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Benoit Claise's Discuss on 
draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Date: 	Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:13:06 -0800
From: 	Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
To: 	The IESG <[email-masked]>
CC: 	[email-masked], 
[email-masked]

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-10: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

The AAA doctors reviewed version 10

1. While Section 3 now does describe how authentication/authorization
functions in a way that is compliant with RFC 2865 and 5080, there is no
normative language and the requirements (e.g. for User-Name and
User-Password attributes, Message-Authenticator attribute) are not
included in Section 4.2.

2. Section 6 (Security Considerations) has a dangling sentence:

...

    The MAC address spoofing is possible

...

   OK... then what?

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

- Also, it would be helpful to be explicit about the value of the
Service-Type attribute in Access-Requests (I am assuming that this is no
longer "Call-Check", since the User-Password attribute is included in the
Access-Request).

- You started to use the terminology from RFC 5969, but for two terms
only.
It's a pity that you didn't reuse so other.
4.1. IPv6-6rd-Configuration Attribute

        6rdPrefix

          The Service Provider's 6rd IPv6 prefix represented as a 16
          octet IPv6 address. The bits after the 6rdPrefixlen number of
          bits in the prefix SHOULD be set to zero.

        ...

        6rdBRIPv4Address

          One or more IPv4 addresses of the 6rd Border Relay(s) for a
          given 6rd domain. The maximum RADIUS Attribute length of 255
          octets results in a limit of 58 IPv4 addresses.

>From RFC 5969:
    6rd prefix            An IPv6 prefix selected by the service provider
                          for use by a 6rd domain.  There is exactly one
                          6rd prefix for a given 6rd domain.  An SP may
                          deploy 6rd with a single 6rd domain or multiple
                          6rd domains.

    ...

    BR IPv4 address       The IPv4 address of the 6rd Border Relay for a
                          given 6rd domain.  This IPv4 address is used by
                          the CE to send packets to a BR in order to
                          reach IPv6 destinations outside of the 6rd
                          domain.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:18:45 -0500

Any feedback folks?  I'm sitting on a discuss related to this.

spt

On 1/17/13 4:20 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Please refer tohttp://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html