Dynamic Peer Discovery for RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS Based on the Network Access Identifier (NAI)
draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
15 | (System) | Notify list changed from radext-chairs@ietf.org, jounikor@gmail.com to (None) |
2015-10-07
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-10-06
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from REF |
2015-08-03
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2015-07-23
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2015-07-02
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from AUTH48 |
2015-06-30
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-06-25
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-05-27
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2015-05-26
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2015-05-26
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-05-14
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-05-14
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-05-14
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-05-13
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-05-13
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-05-13
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-05-13
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-05-13
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-05-13
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2015-05-12
|
15 | Pearl Liang | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-05-11
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2015-04-29
|
15 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-15.txt |
2015-04-19
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-04-09
|
14 | Stefan Winter | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2015-04-09
|
14 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-14.txt |
2015-04-09
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2015-04-09
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot discuss] Hold for expert IANA review, waiting for Russ Housley. |
2015-04-09
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to Discuss from Yes |
2015-04-09
|
13 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-04-09
|
13 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-04-09
|
13 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Some edits were agreed on during the Gen-ART review; I'm not sure there has a new revision since then. |
2015-04-09
|
13 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-04-09
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I have to say radext drafts are frequently very high quality and this is no exception. Thanks. - 2.1.1.3 - typo: s/PKS/PSK/ - … [Ballot comment] I have to say radext drafts are frequently very high quality and this is no exception. Thanks. - 2.1.1.3 - typo: s/PKS/PSK/ - 2.2, just wondering (and not suggesting you change) but did you consider that using san.dNSName with an accompanying policy OID could allow you to use current CA s/w without confusing the semantics (and without requiring the new otherName)? - Thanks for section 6. |
2015-04-09
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-04-08
|
13 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-04-08
|
13 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-04-08
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-04-08
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-04-07
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-04-02
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Weis. |
2015-03-21
|
13 | Martin Thomson | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Martin Thomson. |
2015-03-20
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot has been issued |
2015-03-20
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-03-20
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-03-20
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2015-03-19
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2015-03-19
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2015-03-19
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-03-19
|
13 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-13. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-13. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA has questions for the IANA actions requested in this draft. Further, some of the new requested values require Expert review. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are six actions which must be completed. First, in the S-NAPTR Application Service Tags subregistry of the Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/s-naptr-parameters/ three, new service tags will be registered as follows: Tag: aaa+auth Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Tag: aaa+accr Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Tag: aaa+dynauth Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA Note --> As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. Second, in the S-NAPTR Application Protocol Tags subregistry of the Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/s-naptr-parameters/ two, new service tags will be registered as follows: Tag: radius.tls.tcp Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Tag: radius.dtls.udp Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA Note --> As above, this document requests registrations in a Specification Required registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. Third, this document requests two service names - radiustls and radiusdtls - to be registered for both TCP and UDP in the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers Service Name: radiustls; radiusdtls Transport Protocols: TCP, UDP Assignee: IESG Contact: IETF Chair Description: Authentication, Accounting and Dynamic authorization via the RADIUS protocol. These service names are used to construct the SRV service labels "_radiustls" and "_radiusdtls" for discovery of RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS servers, respectively. Reference: [RFC-to-be] Question: What are the Defined TXT keys for each SRV names? The Defined TXT keys are required for SRV service names. The authors should submit a template at http://www.iana.org/form/ports-services for early allocation and put the Internet Draft as a reference according to RFC6335 as stated in section 8.1.1 of that document. Fourth, IANA understands that this draft makes use of the SRV Protocol identifiers "_tcp" and "_udp" which are mentioned as early as [RFC2782] but do not appear to be assigned in an actual registry. IANA is unable to find these assigned in any SRV Protocol related registry. IANA understands that the authors are choosing not to requesting a new registry "RADIUS/TLS SRV Protocol Registry" to support the formal registration of those identifiers. Fifth, a new value will be registered in the "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier Registry" which is located in: in http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers IANA notes that the authors have provided the following for a description: TBD99 id-mod-nai-realm-08 [RFC-to-be] IANA Note --> As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required registry as per RFC7299, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. Sixth, a new value will be registered in the "SMI Security for PKIX Other Name Forms Registry which is located in: in http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers IANA notes that the authors have provided the following for a description: TBD98 id-on-nai [RFC-to-be] IANA Note --> As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required registry as per RFC7299, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. IANA understands that these six actions are the only ones required to be ocmpleted upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120. |
2015-03-13
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-09 |
2015-03-13
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-03-12
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2015-03-12
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2015-03-06
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-03-06
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (NAI-based Dynamic Peer Discovery for … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (NAI-based Dynamic Peer Discovery for RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from the RADIUS EXTensions WG (radext) to consider the following document: - 'NAI-based Dynamic Peer Discovery for RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS' as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-03-20. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies a means to find authoritative RADIUS servers for a given realm. It is used in conjunction with either RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-03-06
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-03-06
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | Last call was requested |
2015-03-06
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-03-06
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-03-06
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-03-06
|
13 | Kathleen Moriarty | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-03-06
|
13 | Jouni Korhonen | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The I-D aims to be an Experimental RFC. This is indicated in the I-D front page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document specifies a means to find authoritative RADIUS servers for a given (NAI) realm using the DNS infrastructure. It can be used in conjunction with either RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS, or even with current RADIUS transport if transport level security is not a concern. The solution similar but more up to date version of Diameter DNS-based peer discovery. Working Group Summary The solution has a full support from the WG. Document Quality There are multiple implementations and the solution is also deployed as part of the global Eduroam consortium RADIUS roaming infrastructure. There has not been any prior directorate reviews. Personnel Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. Kathleen Moriarty (kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com) is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd had an extensive review of version -11. The review resulted a set of comments (in issue tracker) that were addressed in the version -12. AD review comments were addressed in the version -13. The document shepherd thinks the document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document reserves new S-NAPTR Service and Protocol Tags. Those need to be reviews by the appropriate assigned experts. In the same effort the DNS experts should review Section 3.4 "Realm to RADIUS server resolution algorithm" algorithm. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. No IPRs have been claimed or known to exists. The shepherd has received a confirmation from both authors. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The solution has a full WG support. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits reports few warnings. Outdated references can be corrected by the RFC editor. The warning about non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs is bogus. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document needs S-NAPTR and the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry expert reviews during IANA allocations. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? Yes, this document normatively references to the draft-ietf-radext-nai, which is now in IESG evaluation. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document does not create new IANA registries. However, it reserves: 1) new S-NAPTR Application Service and Protocol Tags 2) "radiustls" and "radiusdtls" from the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry 3) a number of Object Identifiers All of these are well described in the IANA considerations section. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 1) new S-NAPTR Application Service and Protocol Tags The IANA expert is Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) 2) "radiustls" and "radiusdtls" from the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry The IANA experts pool is Joe Touch; Eliot Lear, Allison Mankin, Markku Kojo, Kumiko Ono, Martin Stiemerling, Lars Eggert, Alexey Melnikov and Wes Eddy 3) a number of Object Identifiers The IANA expert is Russ Housley. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. None. |
2015-03-06
|
13 | Jouni Korhonen | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The I-D aims to be an Experimental RFC. This is indicated in the I-D front page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document specifies a means to find authoritative RADIUS servers for a given (NAI) realm using the DNS infrastructure. It can be used in conjunction with either RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS, or even with current RADIUS transport if transport level security is not a concern. The solution similar but more up to date version of Diameter DNS-based peer discovery. Working Group Summary The solution has a full support from the WG. Document Quality There are multiple implementations and the solution is also deployed as part of the global Eduroam consortium RADIUS roaming infrastructure. There has not been any prior directorate reviews. Personnel Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. Kathleen Moriarty (kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com) is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd had an extensive review of version -11. The review resulted a set of comments (in issue tracker) that were addressed in the version -12. The document shepherd thinks the document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document reserves new S-NAPTR Service and Protocol Tags. Those need to be reviews by the appropriate assigned experts. In the same effort the DNS experts should review Section 3.4 "Realm to RADIUS server resolution algorithm" algorithm. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. No IPRs have been claimed. The shepherd has a confirmation from both authors. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The solution has a full WG support. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits reports few warnings. Outdated references can be corrected by the RFC editor. The warning about non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs is bogus. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document needs S-NAPTR and the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry expert reviews during IANA allocations. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? Yes, this document normatively references to the draft-ietf-radext-nai, which is now in IESG evaluation. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document does not create new IANA registries. However, it reserves: 1) new S-NAPTR Application Service and Protocol Tags 2) "radiustls" and "radiusdtls" from the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry 3) a number of Object Identifiers All of these are well described in the IANA considerations section. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 1) new S-NAPTR Application Service and Protocol Tags The IANA expert is Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) 2) "radiustls" and "radiusdtls" from the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry The IANA experts pool is Joe Touch; Eliot Lear, Allison Mankin, Markku Kojo, Kumiko Ono, Martin Stiemerling, Lars Eggert, Alexey Melnikov and Wes Eddy 3) a number of Object Identifiers The IANA expert is Russ Housley. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. None. |
2015-03-06
|
13 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-13.txt |
2015-02-25
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-02-25
|
12 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-01-14
|
12 | Benoît Claise | Shepherding AD changed to Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-01-02
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Brian Weis. |
2014-12-05
|
12 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-12-05
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The I-D aims to be an Experimental RFC. This is indicated in the I-D front page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document specifies a means to find authoritative RADIUS servers for a given (NAI) realm using the DNS infrastructure. It can be used in conjunction with either RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS, or even with current RADIUS transport if transport level security is not a concern. The solution similar but more up to date version of Diameter DNS-based peer discovery. Working Group Summary The solution has a full support from the WG. Document Quality There are multiple implementations and the solution is also deployed as part of the global Eduroam consortium RADIUS roaming infrastructure. There has not been any prior directorate reviews. Personnel Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. Benoit Claise (bclaise@cisco.com) is the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd had an extensive review of version -11. The review resulted a set of comments (in issue tracker) that were addressed in the version -12. The document shepherd thinks the document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document reserves new S-NAPTR Service and Protocol Tags. Those need to be reviews by the appropriate assigned experts. In the same effort the DNS experts should review Section 3.4 "Realm to RADIUS server resolution algorithm" algorithm. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. No IPRs have been claimed. The shepherd has a confirmation from both authors. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. None. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The solution has a full WG support. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits reports few warnings. Outdated references can be corrected by the RFC editor. The warning about non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs is bogus. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document needs S-NAPTR and the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry expert reviews during IANA allocations. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? Yes, this document normatively references to the draft-ietf-radext-nai, which is now in IESG evaluation. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document does not create new IANA registries. However, it reserves: 1) new S-NAPTR Application Service and Protocol Tags 2) "radiustls" and "radiusdtls" from the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry 3) a number of Object Identifiers All of these are well described in the IANA considerations section. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 1) new S-NAPTR Application Service and Protocol Tags The IANA expert is Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) 2) "radiustls" and "radiusdtls" from the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry The IANA experts pool is Joe Touch; Eliot Lear, Allison Mankin, Markku Kojo, Kumiko Ono, Martin Stiemerling, Lars Eggert, Alexey Melnikov and Wes Eddy 3) a number of Object Identifiers The IANA expert is Russ Housley. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. None. |
2014-12-05
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | State Change Notice email list changed to radext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery.all@tools.ietf.org, radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org, jounikor@gmail.com |
2014-12-05
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | Responsible AD changed to Benoit Claise |
2014-12-05
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2014-12-05
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-12-05
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-12-05
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | The email address of Mike McCauley in the I-D is outdated. The working on is mikem@airspayce.com |
2014-12-05
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2014-12-05
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-12-05
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-11-27
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-11-27
|
12 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2014-10-27
|
12 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-12.txt |
2014-03-25
|
11 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2014-03-25
|
11 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2014-03-17
|
11 | Jouni Korhonen | Folks, As mentioned during the London WG meeting we'll have another quick WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery I-D. This email starts a one week WGLC. The WGLC … Folks, As mentioned during the London WG meeting we'll have another quick WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery I-D. This email starts a one week WGLC. The WGLC end 25th March. Voice your comments on the list and document them also into the issue tracker. Silence is counted as an acceptance of the current I-D as-is. - Jouni & Stefan |
2014-03-17
|
11 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2014-03-17
|
11 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2014-03-17
|
11 | Jouni Korhonen | Document shepherd changed to Jouni Korhonen |
2014-03-17
|
11 | Jouni Korhonen | Document shepherd changed to (None) |
2014-03-17
|
11 | Jouni Korhonen | Document shepherd changed to Mauricio Sanchez |
2014-03-04
|
11 | Tina Tsou | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Fajardo |
2014-03-04
|
11 | Tina Tsou | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Fajardo |
2014-03-04
|
11 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-11.txt |
2014-02-24
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Early review by OPSDIR to David Harrington was rejected |
2014-02-17
|
10 | Jouni Korhonen | Small updates to I-D. Go to immediate publication after IETF #89 if just possible. |
2014-02-17
|
10 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2014-02-17
|
10 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2014-02-14
|
10 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-10.txt |
2014-02-05
|
09 | Jouni Korhonen | This document now replaces draft-winter-dynamic-discovery instead of None |
2014-02-03
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Harrington |
2014-02-03
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Harrington |
2014-02-03
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
2014-01-02
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2014-01-02
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis |
2013-12-30
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rob Austein |
2013-12-30
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rob Austein |
2013-12-29
|
09 | Jouni Korhonen | The WGLC ends 13th Jan 2014. |
2013-12-29
|
09 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2013-12-29
|
09 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-12-29
|
09 | Jouni Korhonen | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
2013-12-19
|
09 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-09.txt |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-08.txt |
2013-07-04
|
07 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-07.txt |
2013-02-25
|
06 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-06.txt |
2012-12-13
|
05 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-05.txt |
2012-06-28
|
04 | Stefan Winter | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-04.txt |
2012-01-09
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-07-08
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-03.txt |
2010-03-05
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-02.txt |
2009-07-13
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-01.txt |
2009-07-03
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-00.txt |