FW: ISSUE: definition of RADIUS IPv6 "data types" arbitrary and unjustified

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Zorn [mailto:gwz@net-zen.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:41 PM
To: 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org'
Cc: 'iesg@ietf.org'
Subject: ISSUE: definition of RADIUS IPv6 "data types" arbitrary and
unjustified

Description of issue: The definition of RADIUS IPv6 "data types" arbitrary
and unjustified

Submitter name: Glen Zorn

Submitter email address: gwz@net-zen.net

Date first submitted: 22 October 2009

Document: draft-ietf-radext-design-09

Comment type: T

Priority: S

Section: 2.1.1

Rationale/Explanation of issue:
The section in question states:
   In addition to these data types, follow-on RADIUS specifications
   define attributes using the following additional types:

   IPv6 address   128 bit value, in network byte order.
   IPv6 prefix    8 bits of reserved, 8 bits of prefix length, up to
                  128 bits of value, in network byte order.
   integer64      64 bit unsigned value, in network byte order
                  This type has also been used to represent an IPv6
                  interface identifier.

   Examples of the IPv6 address type include NAS-IPv6-Address defined in
   [RFC3162] Section 2.1 and Login-IPv6-Host defined in [RFC3162]
   Section 2.4.  The IPv6 prefix type is used in [RFC3162] Section 2.3,
   and in [RFC4818] Section 3.  The integer64 type is used for the ARAP-
   Challenge-Response Attribute defined in [RFC2869] Section 5.15, and
   the Framed-Interface-Id Attribute defined in [RFC3162] Section 2.2.
   [RFC4675] Section 2.4 defines User-Priority-Table as 64-bits in
   length, but denotes it as type String.

   Given that attributes of type IPv6 address, IPv6 prefix, and
   integer64 are already in use, it is RECOMMENDED that RADIUS server
   implementations include support for these additional basic types, in
   addition to the types defined in [RFC2865].

However, simply examining the references shows that none of the RFCs cited
define _any_ "data types".  The claim made is arbitrary and unjustified;
essentially, the author is inventing the "data types" out of thin air.

Requested change:
Either delete the entire section or modify it to be a more reasonable and
justified _description_ of formats that have been previously used in RADIUS
to carry quantities related to IPv6, rather than using irrelevant references
to attempt to justify the  _prescription_ of future behavior.  



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>