RADIUS Attributes for IPv6 Access Networks
draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-16

[Ballot discuss]
In 3.4 and 3.5, are the names for the pools in any particular character set or encoding scheme? Are they simply US-ASCII, or can the by UTF-8, or something else? Or are they really opaque blobs and not strings at all? I think this really needs to be specified, even if that specification is "bucket of bits".

[Ballot comment]
1) In section 2.1, there is a statement that the Framed-Interface-Id
and Framed-IPv6-Prefix attributes are "more natural for use with PPP's
IPv6 Control Protocol than [...] for use with DHCPv6."  The next
paragraph goes on to use SLAAC as the motivation for the
Framed-IPv6-Address.  Is the use of the Framed-Interface-Id and
Framed-IPv6-Prefix attributes for SLAAC defined somewhere?  I can
understand the use of the Framed-IPv6-Prefix for use with SLAAC,
although its use in this context implies to me that ND is used to
support SLAAC in an unusual way if different prefixes are assigned to
hosts on the same link.  How is the Frame-Interface-ID used with
SLAAC?

2) Are there currently deployments that use Framed-IPv6-Prefix and
Framed-Interface-Id attributes for DHCPv6 address assignment?  Does
this text from section 2.1 imply that deployment scenario is no longer
RFC-compliant: "To avoid ambiguity, the Framed-IPv6-Address attribute
is only used for authorization and accounting of DHCPv6-assigned
addresses"

3) If the Framed-IPv6-Address attribute is intended for use with
DHCPv6, should it include preferred and valid lifetime information?

4) Should the Route-IPv6-Information attribute include preference and
lifetime information?

5) Section 3.2 - For consistency/completeness, it might be good to
cite RFC 6106 along with RFC 3646.

[Ballot comment]
The sentence on RADIUS shared secrets in the security considerations document seems out of place - what about that is made special in the context of the attributes this document is defining?

[Ballot comment]

- Can't you give some reference to the "known security
vulnerabilities" in the security considerations?  Maybe [1],
but perhaps that's getting old or [2] but I've not read that,
so maybe its no good:-)

  [1] http://regul.uni-mb.si/~meolic/ptk-seminarske/radius.pdf
  [2] https://computerresearch.org/~comput45/stpr/index.php/gjcst/article/viewPDFInterstitial/649/577

- I'd have preferred if you were able to make some security
mechanisms mandatory to implement, but this isn't the right
document for that. However, an informative reference to e.g.
RFC 6614 or similar might be good.

[Ballot comment]
1. In section 2:
* s/returns to the attributes used/returns the attributes used/
* While technically correct, it would be clearer to state that IPv6 routes can be returned via NDP rather than ICMPv6.  Given that there is not an RFC for returning route information via DHCPv6, I would suggest dropping that from this section.

2. In the subsections under section 3, there are several ambiguous uses of "server".  It would help with clarity to specify which server (NAS or AAA) is being referenced.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access-13 and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action
which IANA must complete.

In the "Radius Attribute Types" subregistry of the Radius Types registry
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types

Five new Radius Attribute Types are to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD ]
Description: Framed-IPv6-Address
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD ]
Description: DNS-Server-IPv6-Address
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD ]
Description: Route-IPv6-Information
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD ]
Description: Delegated-IPv6-Prefix-Pool
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD ]
Description: Stateful-IPv6-Address-Pool
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed 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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access Networks) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the RADIUS EXTensions WG (radext) to
consider the following document:
- 'RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access Networks'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2012-11-13. 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 additional IPv6 RADIUS attributes useful in
  residential broadband network deployments.  The attributes, which are
  used for authorization and accounting, enable assignment of a host
  IPv6 address and IPv6 DNS server address via DHCPv6; assignment of an
  IPv6 route announced via router advertisement; assignment of a named
  IPv6 delegated prefix pool; and assignment of a named IPv6 pool for
  host DHCPv6 addressing.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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?

RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access Networks is to be published
as a Standards Track RFC, which is indicated in the I-D's
cover page Intended Status field.

The RADIUS attributes defined in this I-D are needed for the
emerging IPv6 deployments across multiple types of network
architectures.

(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

The I-D defines additional attributes for various IPv6
access network deployments (be that fixes or mobile network).
The attributes complement already existing set of IPv6 attributes
defined in e.g., RFC3162 and RFC4818. Furthermore, the I-D clarifies
the use of some existing IPv6 related attributes and the relationship
of those to the newly defined attributes.


Working Group Summary

The I-D has been discussed extensively in the RADEXT WG and has
reached the overall working group consensus. There was a lengthy
discussion regarding the Route-IPv6-Information attribute format
and whether it should also contain the rest of the RFC4191 Route
Information Option field in addition to the prefix. The WG
reached a consensus that the other values are local to router
configuration and not retrieved from the RADIUS server.

Document Quality

There is specific interest from the Broadband Forum to incorporate
the attributes defined in this specification into their respective
IPv6 standards.

AAA Doctors have not reviewed the document yet. There is no need
for MIB or other doctorate review.

Once the document goes to IETF LC, a review from V6OPS should be
requested.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?

Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document
shepherd.

(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 has reviewed the document after it has
concluded the WGLC. The document shepherd thinks the document
is ready for publication and there is no reason to delay the
publication anymore, since the attributes defined in this
document are needed by the industry.

(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 should be reviewed by V6OPS once it goes to
IETF LC.

(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.

The document shepherd has 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.

No IPRs have been declared.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPRs have been declared.

(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 WG consensus is solid and does not represent only the
opinion of few individuals.

(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.

The document passes IDnits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document does not define MIBs, media types, URIs etc.
The data types used in the document comply with RFC6158.

(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?

No.

(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 only requests for five new RADIUS attribute types
from an existing IANA registry.

(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.

None.

(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.

Checked with IDnits and verified against RFC6158 RADIUS
design guidelines.