Dear all,

Glad that this document finally makes progress.

>From the writeup (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext/shepherdwriteup/), I see:

(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 (informatively) references to RFC4005 on its Diameter
   considerations. The RFC4005 will soon be obsoleted by RFC4005bis.
   The RFC4005bis also deprecates the RADIUS-Diameter automated
   translation, which is discussed in detail in Section 4 Diameter Considerations.

   The shepherd would recommend removing entire Section 4, since
   RADIUS-Diameter considerations are not really endorsed anymore.

   Furthermore, Section 4 uses Diameter AVP Flag rules as defined in RFC3588,
   which has already been obsoleted by RFC6733 and there the AVP Flag rules
   are less due to e.g. deprecation of Diameter in-band security.

    Guidelines for implementing a RADIUS-Diameter translation agent 
    were put into the Diameter NASREQ Application RFC 4005.
    However, it was acknowledged that such translation mechanism was not
    so obvious and deeper protocol analysis was required to ensure
    efficient interworking between RADIUS and Diameter.  Moreover, the
    interworking requirements depend on the functionalities provided by
    the Diameter application under specification, and a case-by-case
    analysis is required.
    As a consequence, all the material related to RADIUS-to-Diameter translation has been   
    removed from the new version of the Diameter NASREQ application specification 
    [RFC4005bis], which deprecates RFC4005

   Furthermore, Section 4 uses Diameter AVP Flag rules as defined in RFC3588,
   which has already been obsoleted by RFC6733 and there the AVP Flag rules
   are less due to e.g. deprecation of Diameter in-band security.

EDITORIAL
The guidelines in RFC 3580 are still valid, right?

OLD:
   "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
   Usage Guidelines" [RFC3580] provided guidelines for the use of the
   Remote Authentication Dialin User Service (RADIUS) within networks
   utilizing IEEE 802 local area networks. 
NEW:
 "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
   Usage Guidelines" [RFC3580] provides guidelines for the use of the
   Remote Authentication Dialin User Service (RADIUS) within networks
   utilizing IEEE 802 local area networks. 

Regards, Benoit

Dear all,

Glad that this document finally makes progress.

>From the writeup (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext/shepherdwriteup/), I see:

(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 (informatively) references to RFC4005 on its Diameter
   considerations. The RFC4005 will soon be obsoleted by RFC4005bis.
   The RFC4005bis also deprecates the RADIUS-Diameter automated
   translation, which is discussed in detail in Section 4 Diameter Considerations.

   The shepherd would recommend removing entire Section 4, since
   RADIUS-Diameter considerations are not really endorsed anymore.

   Furthermore, Section 4 uses Diameter AVP Flag rules as defined in RFC3588,
   which has already been obsoleted by RFC6733 and there the AVP Flag rules
   are less due to e.g. deprecation of Diameter in-band security.

    Guidelines for implementing a RADIUS-Diameter translation agent 
    were put into the Diameter NASREQ Application RFC 4005.
    However, it was acknowledged that such translation mechanism was not
    so obvious and deeper protocol analysis was required to ensure
    efficient interworking between RADIUS and Diameter.  Moreover, the
    interworking requirements depend on the functionalities provided by
    the Diameter application under specification, and a case-by-case
    analysis is required.
    As a consequence, all the material related to RADIUS-to-Diameter translation has been   
    removed from the new version of the Diameter NASREQ application specification 
    [RFC4005bis], which deprecates RFC4005

   Furthermore, Section 4 uses Diameter AVP Flag rules as defined in RFC3588,
   which has already been obsoleted by RFC6733 and there the AVP Flag rules
   are less due to e.g. deprecation of Diameter in-band security.

EDITORIAL
The guidelines in RFC 3580 are still valid, right?

OLD:
   "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
   Usage Guidelines" [RFC3580] provided guidelines for the use of the
   Remote Authentication Dialin User Service (RADIUS) within networks
   utilizing IEEE 802 local area networks. 
NEW:
 "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
   Usage Guidelines" [RFC3580] provides guidelines for the use of the
   Remote Authentication Dialin User Service (RADIUS) within networks
   utilizing IEEE 802 local area networks. 

Regards, Benoit

_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
radext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext