Subject: [radext] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-radsec-11: (with DISCUSSand COMMENT)

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:53:59 +0100

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:53 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: Pete McCann; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-radsec-11: (with DISCUSSand COMMENT)

Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-radext-radsec-11: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

  The Gen-ART Review by Peter McCann on 30-Jan-2012 raised two
  concerns.  Please respond to each of them.

  (1) Section 2.4:
       In TLS-X.509 with PKI infrastructure, a client is uniquely
       identified by the serial number of the tuple (presented client
       certificate;Issuer).
      SHOULD BE:
       In TLS-X.509 with PKI infrastructure, a client is uniquely
       identified by the tuple (serial number of presented client
       certificate;Issuer).

  (2) Because RADIUS supports the Disconnect Request (server-to-client)
      message, it seems that there is some requirement to keep the TLS
      session open for the duration of the access that was authorized.
      Otherwise, the server would not be able to send such a packet to
      the client without initiating its own TLS connection which may not
      be possible or desirable.  Is this aspect of the specification
      inherited from the referenced TCP specification?  It may be
      helpful to add a paragraph about this issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

  The Gen-ART Review by Peter McCann on 30-Jan-2012 raised two editorial
  issues.  Please consider them.

  (1) Section 2.3:
       x.y.z
      Did you mean to fill in a real section number here?

  (2) Note Section 3.4 (1) )
      Missing open paren?

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:53:59 +0100

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:53 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: Pete McCann; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-radsec-11: (with DISCUSSand COMMENT)

  (1) Section 2.4:

  (1) Section 2.3:
       x.y.z

_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext