Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06.txt

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:06:08 -0600

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06.txt
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 11 Nov. 2008
IETF LC End Date: 11 Nov. 2008
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard.  A couple feedback items follow:

- S1: The last two paragraphs of this section compare some terms used
   in this draft against similar terms in SNMP.  I am curious: why
   the explicit call-out and comparison of these terms in SNMP?  Does
   SNMP have a special relationship to this draft that requires that a
   difference be explicitly established vis-a-vis certain terms?

   I just found that more distracting then helpful.  Of course, you
   may have a valid enough reason for this comparison, and if so,
   providing the reason to the reader will help in setting up
   the context.

- S5.3: Below the figure, the Length is shown as ">= 3".  However,
   the Text field expects "one or more octets..."  Should not the
   Length then be ">= 1"?

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW:   http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "David B. Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:15:22 -0500

Vijay K. Gurbani writes...

>    difference be explicitly established vis-a-vis certain terms?

The text that you question was added in response to an issue raised during
AD Review of the draft by Dan Romascanu.  The text is adapted from that
suggested by Juergen Schoenwaelder, chair of the ISMS WG.  The ISMS WG has a
particular interest in this document.    

>    providing the reason to the reader will help in setting up

I tend to agree that without the discussion context the purpose of the
distinction in terms is not very clear.  Perhaps some context ought to be
provided.
 
>    the Text field expects "one or more octets..."  Should not the

In RADIUS, the Length field of the Type, Length, Value (TLV) tuple includes
the Type and Length octets in the count.  If the Value is one octet in
length, the Length field would be 3.  See RFC 2865 Section 5, which reads,
in part:

Length

      The Length field is one octet, and indicates the length of this
      Attribute including the Type, Length and Value fields.