Skip to main content

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