Subject: [radext] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 04:52:21 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05: 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-coa-proxy/

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

Thanks for this well-written doc.

One nit in sec 3.1: s/activee/active/

One quick question on sec 3.3:
"Operator-NAS-Identifier MUST NOT occur more than once in a packet."
What happens if it occurs more than once? Just ignore or send an error?

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 08:40:48 -0400

> On Aug 13, 2018, at 7:52 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

> One nit in sec 3.1: s/activee/active/

  Fixed/

> What happens if it occurs more than once? Just ignore or send an error?

  Ignore it.   I'll add some text:

If a packet contains more than one Operator-NAS-Identifier,
implementations MUST treat the second and subsequent attributes as
"invalid attributes", as discussed in [RFC6929] Section 2.8.

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 15:25:52 +0200

> Am 13.08.2018 um 14:40 schrieb Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>:
> 
> 

Thanks, I didn’t check RFC6929 but it probably doesn’t hurt to be clear about this in this document as well.

Mirja