Telechat Review of draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-04
review-ietf-radext-datatypes-04-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-09-06-00

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the quick response. The planned edits seem to address all the issues
that I raised. There are good chances that I will just say 'I am happy' when I
will see the revised I-D.

Regards,

Dan

From:

 Gen-art [gen-art-bounces at ietf.org] on behalf of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)

Sent:

 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 6:28 PM

To:

 General Area Review Team

Cc:

 radext at ietf.org; draft-ietf-radext-datatypes.all at tools.ietf.org

Subject:

 [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-04.txt

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.



For more information, please see the FAQ at



https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq



Document: draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-04.txt

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 8/9/16

IETF LC End Date: 8/17/16

IESG Telechat date: 8/18/16



Summary:



Ready with issues.



This is an important document that tries to bring clarification to a number of
different interpretations and recommendations around the RADIUS specifications.
Being familiar – up to a certain point – with the history, I believe that
 it’s long due and that it will be very useful. There are however a number of
 issues which I believe need to be clarified before the document is approved by
 the IESG.



Major issues:



1.



Although the document makes the claim that it does not impact previous
specifications and implementations, I am not sure this is completely the case.
For example, the statement in RFC 6158, section 2.1 about ‘all other data
 formats (than the ones defined there) being NOT RECOMMENDED is obsolete by
 this document. I think that there is a need to make clear what is not longer
 valid or recommended in specifications that this document updates.

2.



This document creates a new IANA registry and updates another one. There is no
mention however about the policy of adding new entries or making other
modifications to the new registry. A reminder of the RADIUS Attribute
 Type registry policy would also help.



Minor issues:



1.



In section 3.5 – there is no mention that the string length is limited to 253
octets. This is obvious if we assume the definition of  “string” sticking with
previous RADIUS documents, and clear by the fact that “concat”
 deals in 3.6 with transport of more than 253 octets, but for clarity I believe
 that this needs to be explicitly stated.

2.



It is not clear why the Prefix-Length value greater than 128 for ipv6prefix in
3.10 and greater than 32 for ipv4prefix in 3.11 need only SHOULD be treated as
“invalid attributes”. Why not MUST? If there are exception cases
 it would be good to explain them.



Nits/editorial comments:



1.



Section 2.1.4: The paragraph that starts with ‘The “Value” field should be
given ….’ needs to use capitalized SHOULD to be consistent with the paragraph
that refer to the “Name” and “Format” fields.