draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-04.txt
==================================
(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 document aims at Standards Track, and this is indicated in the header. The
document defines new RADIUS attributes and an algorithm for their use which
enable the use of RFC5176-style Change of Authorization (CoA) and Disconnect
(DM) messages in large proxy-based roaming environments, so long as these
environments are able to identify clients with a domain name.
Considering that RFC5176 itself is Informational, one could reason about the
document at hand also being Informational. However, it appears rather the other
way around, namely that RFC5176 is rather misplaced at Informational and with
its rather normative nature should better have been Standards Track.
(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:
RFC 5176 defines Change of Authorization (CoA) and Disconnect Message
(DM) behavior for RADIUS. Section 3.1 of that document suggests that
proxying these messages is possible, but gives no guidance as to how
that is done. This ommission means that proxying of CoA packets is,
in practice, impossible. This specification corrects that omission for
scenarios where networks use Realm-based proxying as defined in
[RFC7542].
It leverages an existing RADIUS attribute, Operator-Name ( Section
4.1 of [RFC5580]), to record the visited network for a particular
session. The document explains how that attribute can be used by CoA
proxies to route packets "backwards" through a RADIUS proxy chain. It
introduces a new attribute; Operator-NAS-Identifier, and shows how this
attribute can increase privacy about the internal implementation of
the visited network.
Working Group Summary:
The radext working group is rather light in attendance and discussion,
and will shut down soon. With that said, this particular document got
a (comparatively) good amount of review and interest.
Document Quality:
At least one RADIUS implementation has support for parts of this specification.
Particularly the bit about replacing NAS-IP-Address/IPv6-Address/NAS-Identifier
with Operator-NAS-Identifier when leaving the own administrative domain is not
implemented. The complexity of that functionality can be expected to be modest,
though.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
The Document Shepherd is Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>. The
responsible area director is Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>.
(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 shepherd reviewed the document continuously throughout its lifecycle from
individual submission to the current rev. For the write-up at hand, the
shephard did another fresh read of -03. The document contained one item worth
clarifying and the author submitted a version -04 to address these.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The usual WG constraints in terms of available manpower to review specs apply.
(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.
This document addresses is a core RADIUS question without significant external
dependencies.
(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.
No specific concerns.
(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?
One author confirmed on the radext mailing list during WGLC, another in a
private mail to the document shepherd.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
There is no IPR disclosure on record.
(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?
Within the previously stated limitations, the working group stands behind this
document.
(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 appeal was threatened. Some working group participants find it suboptimal
that the document is scoped only towards realm-based scenarios; the answer is
that if any other proxy mechanisms are to be covered, then those should be
published in their own document.
(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.
-- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you
have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
(See the Legal Provisions document at
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review besides IDNITs and the present shephard review are required.
(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?
All normative references are issued RFCs.
(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.
According to IDNITs, none of the references are downward references.
(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.
The document updates RFC5176, and this is indicated in the header.
(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).
There is an IANA action to register a new RADIUS attribute. The corresponding
instructions are clear.
(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.
The document asks for a new attribute in the RADIUS attributes registry. The
assignment requires Standars Action, which this document triggers.
(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.
There are no such sections.