Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Technical Summary:

  draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-06 will be a Proposed Standard. The
  I-D adds substantial features to RADIUS protocol that are essential for
  the future of RADIUS and to meet the market demand. These new features
  extend, among other features, the standard attribute type space beyond
  the existing maximum limit of 256. Another remarkable area of
  improvement is the set of generic RADIUS attribute extension including
  long attributes with a value length greater than the current maximum of
  253 octets and standard way of encoding type-length-values with possible
  nesting for creating grouped type attributes.

Working Group Summary:

  Working group spent considerable long time on this document. The
  technical content and selected solutions have been extensively
  discussed in the WG. One of the technical points that faced long
  technical discussion related to concatenation of multiple attributes
  into a one long attribute. The current solution in the I-D reflects
  the WG consensus.

Document Quality:

  There are multiple implementations already available. Also given the
  current I-D is the second incarnation of the design, we can say the
  described solution is mature. For the future support and implementations
  of RADIUS there is no much choice than implement the I-D since current
  RADIUS attribute type space has almost been exhausted.

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


  Jouni Korhonen ( is the document shepherd.
  Benoit Claise 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 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 solutions
  defined in this document are needed by the industry. The remaining
  non-technical editorial nits can be handled in subsequent revisions of the
  I-D during the publication process.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?


(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 AAA Directorate 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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

  The ID nits reports three warnings, which all are either bogus or due to
  lack of "NOT RECOMMENDED" in the standard RFC2119 text provided by the
  xml2rfc template.

  The ID nits reports multiple comments on the document abstract (lack of
  "updates RFC xyz" text) but these can be included latest during the document
  edit time.

  Other than the above, the document passes ID nits.

(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.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?


(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?


(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

  No. however, RFC5226 (BCP) is currently listed as a Normative Reference and
  it is typically been listed as an Informative Reference.

(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.

  Yes. RFCs 2865, 2866, 3575, 5176, 6158 will be updated. These RFCs listed in
  the title page header but not in the abstract or in the introduction. The
  most important updates RFC3575 and RFC6158 are discussed in the main text.

  The missing abstract text is plain editorial and can be added if seen

(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 IANA section is clear and extensive regarding to the new allocation

  The I-D allocates six attributes for the extended types and long extended
  types. Initial assignment for the new style extended attributes is also done.
  The IANA considerations also give detailed instructions how the allocations
  are to be done from the extended type space.

(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.

  There are no new registries per se. However, the I-D describes clearly how
  the new style dotted attribute type tree is to be constructed. It is up to
  IANA to decide how the dotted attribute type tree is arranged in the
  existing RADIUS registry i.e., whether they are placed separately or
  part of the existing Radius Attribute Types registry.

  The existing IANA experts are recommended but they need to get familiar
  with the new style of type tree layout.

(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 ID nits.  There are no additional concerns.