Speaking as a contributor and an OPS DIR reviewer of the DNR work, I think this RADIUS extension has value. In reviewing the draft, I found some discrepancies in the TLV-Length fields. For example, Section 3.3.3 has a TLV-Length of “6” whereas 3.3.5 properly describes the length as “Six octets”. In general, “octets” should be included for all regardless of whether the number is numerical or written out.
You reference RFC6890 when referring to disallowing “host loopbacks” for IPv6, but not when talking about IPv4. Though that document doesn’t use the term “host loopback” rather Loopback for v4 and Loopback Address for v6. Is it also worth citing the v4 (5771) and v6 (2375) multicast assignment RFCs? Joe From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 10:28 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [OPSAWG] 🔔 CALL FOR ADOPTION: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS Hello, WG. I like Henk’s subject icon. Makes for some attention-grabbing. This work has been discussed previously in opsawg, going back over a year. The authors have continued to progress the work and would like to gauge WG interest in adopting it. One might ask, why opsawg? The radext WG has been concluded, but, like IPFIX, there is interest in continuing to produce extensions for RADIUS. It was suggested by Benjamin Kaduk that opsawg was a potential fit for this work. Therefore, this kicks off a two-week CfA for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns/. Please comment on-list with support and/or discussion of the work. Thanks. Joe
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
