►
From YouTube: IETF92-RADEXT-20150323-1520
Description
RADEXT meeting session at IETF92
2015/03/23 1520
A
B
B
A
A
A
So
the
proposed
agenda
is
the
following
one,
so
we
will
go
through
the
agenda
by
gene
first
and
we
will
review
also
the
document
status
mainly
for
the
working
with
documents.
And
after
that
we
will
try
to
have
a
discussion
about
the
ongoing
draft.
So
we
have
a
presentation
from
being
on
the
IP
port
configuration
and
reporting.
So
we
will
go
through
this
one
and
some
would
like
to
have
some
discussion
about
the
other
draft
on
larger
package
for
register
on
over
TCP.
A
We
will
have
an
open
discussion
about
the
individual
grab
discussion
because,
as
you
have
seen
on,
the
meaningless
is
a
proposal
for
researching
the
as
a
working
group.
So
it
is
proposed
to
add
three
new
topics
and
to
rely
on
the
three
existing
documents
as
a
working
group
documents.
So
we
see
that
and
we
will
have
the
discussion
about
the
year
as
a
new
charter.
At
the
end.
A
A
91Like
first,
there
is
no
padishah
rexy
gets,
but
we
have
to
document
in
the
year
a
little
Q.
We
have
the
network
access
identifier,
that
least
almost
publish.
We
are
still
waiting
for
some
reviewer
for
the
I
annihilation,
so
we
need
an
expert
to
river,
but
it
should
be
done
soon
and
we
have
the
registered
fragmentation.
That
is
always
the
also
ready
for
publication,
but
there
is
some
discussion
with
the
FC
editor
to
to
catch
some.
Some
editor
needs
in
the
documents,
but
it
should
be,
it
should
be
soon
submitted.
A
So
there
is
a
mistake
in
the
next
step.
The
next
step
should
be
four
balls:
Erickson
duplication
in
the
ads,
Eiht
liver.
We
have
we
had
the
discussion
about
the
na
days,
so
the
dynamic
peel,
the
discovery
based
on
na
the
last
call
was
completed
at
the
end
of
this
week
and
no
comment
were
received,
but
we
need
also
expert
reviews
for
ini,
location
and,
and
we
are
still
waiting
icing.
A
C
A
But
it's
on
the
track
for
the
working
group
items.
We
have
the
larger
package
for
reduce
over
tcp,
so
we
have
a
discussion,
posits
no
changes
since
I
love.
Sorry
new
version
was
provided
at
the
beginning
of
the
month.
Also
non
payments
were
captured
in
the
version,
so
it
should
be
ready
for
working
group.
Last
poll
we
see
if
there
is
agreement
for
that
and
the
next
step
would
be
after
the
working
group
last
call
the
IES
mission
and
we'll
have
a
specific
presentation
for
our
Peapod
configuration
and
reporting.
A
So
we
have
new
version
version
3.
So
after
exchange
mainly
with
Alan
and
the
others,
there
is
a
new
version
of
the
victim
and
capturing.
First
of
all,
the
comments
I
received
and
also
the
new
definition
of
the
mapping
between
a
registry
and
the
tag
and
I
key
fixed
elements
that
so
this
has
been
incorporated
into
black.
So
from
the
other
point
of
view,
should
be.
The
document
is
stable
and
and
are
ready
for
work
in
the
classroom.
A
We
will
have
a
discussion
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
on
the
proposal
or
the
new
work
item,
so
we
are
thrilled
documents,
so
the
dynamic
capitalizations
working.
That
was
not
changes
since
the
last
idea,
but
we
have
received
some
late
comments
based
on
the
text
providing
for
the
new
charter.
So
there
is
an
ongoing
discussion
between
a
pity
Ariana
make
mainly.
We
will
see
how
to
prove
that
Peterson's
only
I,
don't
think
we
have
the
EAP
response
identity.
A
D
Something
okay:
this
chair
was
next
slide.
Please
the
revision
three
and
actually
this
web
was
adopted
exactly
one
year
ago
and
since
then
there
are
comments
in
the
several
meetings
and
also
on
the
mailing
list
to
help
to
shape
the
document
and
then
in
particular
the
highlights,
for
example,
the
using
the
TRV
for
each
data
field
and
that
one
was
fixed,
india,
01
revision
and
then
the
last
meeting.
D
There
was
a
major
comment
to
suggest
you
use
the
IP
fix
instead
of
defining
the
radix
itself,
but
to
do
that
require
some
mapping,
so
that
comment
was
also
incorporated
and
then
reflected
in
the
03,
a
revision
of
text.
Okay.
So
so
one
trying
to
say
is
on
this
side
the
status
of
reflecting
all
the
comments
so
far
from
the
London
meeting
and
Toronto
meeting
the
condo
meeting,
and
also
on
the
Middle
East
or
being
taken
care.
Okay.
So
that's
a
status
and
the
reflecting
the
year
03
a
tradition.
D
D
So
that
is
the
very
useful
attribute
using
the
existing
protocol
to
report
back
to
the
server
and
that
the
last
one,
the
IP
for
forwarding
map,
if
you
familiar
with
the
pcp
protocol,
which
allow
a
dynamically
configure
one
or
more
port
mapping.
But
here
is
using
the
radius
to
configure
a
mapping
between
internal
and
external
port
associate
with
a
internal
or
external
IP.
D
V4
address,
ok,
next
one.
So
those
are
the
highlights
of
the
three
attributes
we
proposing
and
then
taking
account
into
a
kind
of
the
other
comments
we
received.
So
we
modify
the
frame
extension
for
the
ratings
as
such
the
type
lings
an
extended
type
and
then
followed
by
values.
So
these
format
actually
is
following
exactly
what
defining
I've
seen.
D
6929
okay,
so
including
type,
could
be
one
chosen
from
the
241
242
240
320
for
or
two
for
the
four
deaths
up
to
the
energy
decide
and
then
the
extended
type
also
define
a
very
well
defined
in
the
city,
not
29.
This
is
application,
how
to
use
them.
And
finally,
the
value
is
a
bunch
of
embedded
theories
which
were
proposing
and
also
our
economy
comments
received
from
this
working
group.
So
this
is
the
year,
the
high
level
pack,
the
format.
D
D
Okay,
the
reason
before
that
is
because
we
now
require
to
mapping
between
a
radix
and
then
IP,
IP,
airfix
and
a
prefix
has
internal
ipv4,
address
and
ipv6
address.
So
to
account
to
accommodate
that,
then
we
spring
the
two
different
javi,
but
they
are
semantics,
are
the
same,
only
the
address
and
is
different.
Ok,
so
these
are
the
the
list
of
the
tier
means.
We
and
then
I'll
continue
the
LC
6929.
Then
you
know
there
is
a
nice
way
to
describe
the
identifiers
right,
so
the
Harwick
hierarchical
structure
there,
for
example,
IP
port
limit
attribute.
D
Ok,
you
have
a
type
extended
type
dot,
IP
port
type,
tier
VIII.
Those
are
mandatory
right
and
then
the
IP
poor
limit
theory,
of
course,
is
mandatory
because
you
are
passing
the
information
from
the
server
to
the
port
device
and
then
demand.
What
is
the
part
lab
of
Nepali
limit
for
specific
IP
address,
or
maybe
all
the
IP
address,
configure
the
device
and
then
this
wrong
bracket
rd
optional
device.
So
this
is
to
follow
the
RC
6929,
how
to
express
the
identifiers
for
the
radix
with
attributes
next
one
please
so
so
far.
D
There
is
no
change
there
all
right,
so
this
one
is
also
no
change
there
from
the
01
energy
to
describe
so
each
attribute.
We
propose
what
are
the
mandatory
optional,
our
TV,
okay,
those
also
reflect
to
the
the
identified
in
the
previous
slide.
So
there's
not
nothing.
This
just
a
table
format
to
maybe
is
easy
to
read
it
for
some
people,
alright.
So
next
one
please.
D
So
this
is
the
new
change
that
are
we
putting
the
revision
three,
the
requirement
we
received
from
the
there's.
Probably
three
three-
are
people
on
the
waiting
list
on
in
the
meeting
asking
for
the
map
using
existing
IP
six.
So
we
have
this
highlight
here
is
Inga
and
not
the
table
for
all
assignments.
Okay,
and
then
we
have
majority
of
the
existing
IP
fix
the
element
or
IDs
they
are
available,
and
we
only
need
to
propose
three
more
because
we
need
stream
of
all
current
is
not
defined
about
a
prefix.
D
So
we
have
this
table
to
show
all
the
tvs
with
me,
proposing
as
the
radix
extension
and
being
embedded
contained
in
these
attributes,
how
to
map
one-to-one
mapping
to
the
IP
fixed
element.
Okay,
so
it's
very
nice
mapping
here,
but
I
have
to
point
out
in
the
IP
fix
there's
a
ip6
element
ID,
which
has
the
16
bits
number
all
right,
and
then
the
TRV
in
the
radius
is
a
8
bits.
So
we
asking
the
INA
to
approve
this
proposal
is
to
mapping
uniquely
want
you
were
mapping.
D
D
A
D
D
I
fix,
which
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
radix
yeah,
so
the
so
those
three
CPP
proposed
to
be
attitude:
IP,
Vic's,
okay
and
then
I
ones
being
added.
Then
we
have
a
TR
v,
defining
the
radix
and
the
pond
ature
okay,
so
one
one-to-one
map,
he
is
unique
right,
so
we
define,
because
you
know
what
is
the
tiv
peeing
approve.
You
have
to
assign
them
for
anyway
right
and
those
numbers
are
unique
and
it
seems
unique.
Then
one
notch
is
Pawn
to
another
set
of
unique
number
which
is
defined
about
IP
fixed.
D
So
that's
the
that's
clear
concept
there,
all
right!
So
ok,
next
one!
So
this
just
a
show
are
in
order
to
make
this
work.
Then
we
have
to
propose
to
do.
I
am
NOT
the
what
I
think
the
total
811
TVs
defined
in
the
440
radix
extension
to
support
the
three
extended
attributes
and
then
also
the
reference
in
the
document
where
those
TRV
being
described
and
then
in
particular
like
a
port
type
theory.
Then
those
are
there's
five
different
values
that
right,
tcp,
UDP,
port,
plus
ICMP,
identify
or
TCP,
UDP,
port
or
TCP.
D
Follow
me
or
UDP
polymerizing
ICMP,
our
environment,
so
those
things
are
waiting
for
once
the
last
call
being
you
know,
pass
and
then
submit
to
the
isg.
Then
those
things
are
being
waiting
to
the
coupon
inside
alright.
So
this
one,
instead
of
seeing
that
we
are
asking
why
not?
You
approve
the
next
one
case?
The
next
one
is
a
freezing
to
be
talking
about
and
that
those
three
things
have
nothing
to
do
with
your
ratings
is
just
solely
added
to
the
IP
fix,
and
then
two
besties
define
describe
a
pot
device
right.
D
So
we
and
we
need
to
add
a
few
more
things
right
and
then
notice
that
in
the
current
IP
fix
to
the
database,
they
already
have
net
the
net
related
the
parameters
there.
Okay,
like
a
stop
on
the
endpoint
right.
So
here
is
a
limit.
Then
it's
pretty
much
in
the
same
category
and
then
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
that
would
be
a
difficult
to
commit
people.
This
is
important
because
you
know
you,
you
already
have
some
of
the
parameters
already
familiar
defined
and
that
divides
the
port
device.
D
Behavior
then
do
one
more
okay
and
and
then
because
the
net
divides
the
port
device
you
operating
on
the
on
the
ipe,
a
transport,
a
port
ID
right.
So
you
have
to
tell
people
what
the
pop
rap
either
you
have
a
different
port
number
right.
There
you
have
tcp
UDP,
you
have
identifier
and
then
currently
in
and
that
divides
the
portavoz
de
or
handle
in
you
know
in
a
uniform
way,
but
you
know
would
be
better
to
tell
maybe
some
operate.
They
want
to
know
what's
a
different
cell,
so
this
is
I.
D
Think
you
know,
wishing
dia
is
making
sense
to
eddie's
off.
Also
there
ok,
so
those
three
things
are
the
suggestion.
Children
are
to
be
added
to
the
IP
fix,
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
radix,
but,
however,
once
being
added
to
IP
vix,
then
we
have
a
map
winter
when
mapping
between
base,
and
then
it
is
chip.
B
D
B
B
D
No,
but
he
had
lots
of
comments
from
the
food
it's
based
on
the
01
02
inches
refresh.
We
didn't
make
change
because
we
don't
want
to
be
expired
right,
though
he
had
a
lot
of
comments
on
the
01
packs,
and
then
there
was
another
name
is
also
talking
about
same
thing:
he's
suggesting
strongly
suggesting
uses
IP
fix
pediment
instead
of
define
our
own
thfe.
Alright,
so
well
that
being
King
carry
nothing.
C
Sure
this
is
from
the
jabber
room.
Stefan
says:
he's
read
the
early
Rev,
not
this
one
but
thinks
we
can
go
ahead
with
working
group.
Last
call
and
Sam's
started
typing
in
when
we
get
to
bigger
packets
and
I'm
waiting
for
the
rest
to
come.
It
was
what
was
so.
This
is
when
we
get
the
bigger
package,
so
I
think
he
wasn't
done
right
right
after.
B
B
B
C
There's
no
one
in
the
ribs
was
kind
of
hard
for
me
to
do
it
plus
everything
else,
cool
sam
says.
We
discussed
the
need
for
protocol
error
code
at
the
left,
meaning
text
was
proposed,
there
was
a
review
on
list
and
those
were
new.
Comments
were
addressed.
I
believe
the
draft
is
ready
to
working
with
last
call-thanks,
but.
A
B
A
Someone
we
will
go
on
with
this
draft
right.
After,
for
the
time
being,
we
are
still
on
the
IP
port
configuration
and
so
on.
So
I
have
one
at
this.
One
comment
regarding
the
iron
allocation
process
for
the
IP
fix
element.
I
should
check
what
kind
of
procedure
is
defined
for
the
allocation
of
value
for
IP
fixed
elements.
Is
it's
an
expert
review
or
there
is
a
need
for
specific
draft
application
requesting?
Oh
you.
B
D
A
B
D
A
D
A
A
A
No,
it
was
not
something,
it
was
not
a
limitation.
It
was
just
to
know
the
process
on
on
how
to
value
for
IP
fix
elements.
Okay,
so
we
have
a
comment
from
from
Stefan
things
that
this
document
is
ok
for
working
group.
Last
poll,
I
think
that
the
main,
so
I
will
review
also
this
one
also
the
last
version
of
the
document
to
provide
comment,
but
it
could
be
done
along
the
working
group
last
ball,
so
it
will
at
least
fix
a
limiting
the
time
for
review.
A
It
will
be
two
weeks
a
period,
so
I
will
initiate
the
working
group
last
ball
right
after
the
ATF
meeting.
It
is
easier
to
manage
the
process
so
and
drink
this
time.
Alan
will
be
able
also
to
provide
any
additional
comment.
Ok
and
based
on
the
output
of
this
working
group
last
call.
We
will
see
what
to
do
if
a
revision
is
needed
if
a
new
work,
google+
police
need
it
and
so
on.
If
not,
we
will
submit
it.
So
we
will
do
the
the
photo
writer
and
I
proposed
the
documents
for
IHG
submission.
A
So
this
one
is
down,
so
it
was
for
IP
port
configuration
and
reporting,
so
the
next
one
in
line
is
the
one
from
Sam's
those
larger
packets
for
Reggie's
over
TCP.
So
we
have
received
already
the
comment
from
San
so
as
on
the
nominees
are
right
now
on
the
driver,
room
saying
that
these
documents
is
tabled
for
him.
I
captures
all
the
payment
receipt
so
far,
so
the
proposal
would
be
to
go
for
working
with
law
school
also
for
this
one.
So
we
can.
We
can
enhance
this
working
group
last
ball
for
both
document.
A
A
So
this
is
down
for
the
working
with
glass
bowl
now
along
there's
a
new
charter
proposal.
There
is
positon
being
individual
draft
and
we
have
three
of
them.
So
we
have
the
dynamic
authorization
proxying
proposed
by
alan,
and
it
is
proposing
the
new
charter
to
had
this
document
as
a
working
good
document
for
submission
as
a
solid
track
RFC
in
november
this
year
saying
that
this
document
is
stable
and
it
just
needs
a
review
and
to
agree
on
the
contents.
A
So
no
reaction
since
the
last
meeting,
but
with
the
proposed
the
text
photo.
Chatter
was
a
new
charter
as
a
reason
going
discussion
between
between
Peter
and
Alan
on
what
should
be
the
contents.
The
exact
content
of
this
document
or
of
the
other,
the
work
item
for
the
working
group,
things
that
the
initial
attempt
from
Alan
was
to
rely
on
an
operator
name
ID,
just
to
be
able
to
perform
the
procedure
and
warming.
A
A
Don't
know
if
there
is
any
reaction
on
the
ongoing
discussion
on
de
minimis
know,
so
I
think
that's
it's
not
so
it
means
that
there
is
something
to
do.
I
think
that
at
least
in
the
radix
working
group,
so
I
would
say
that
this
document,
the
work
item,
is
ok
for
the
working
group.
I
think
that
it
could
be.
A
It
is
also
key
to
rely
on
this
document
as
a
working
group
as
a
base
for
discussion
and
to
progress
this
raft
as
a
working
group
document,
and
if
there
is
something
to
change
I,
think
it
could
be
based
on
proposal
and
comment
on
the
current
text
and
in
the
top,
so
it
will
be
at
least
my
proposal.
I
think
that
Stefan
could
be
also
in
line.
Is
this
proposal?
I,
don't
know
if
it's
reacting
as
a
javelin.
B
A
Thank
you
so,
after
that
we
have
the
document
on
the
correct
use
of
AP
response
identity.
So
we
have
this
case
this
document
several
time,
especially
at
the
last
meeting.
It
was
agreed
to
work
on
so
this
document
was
not
updated
but
from
Stefan
point
of
view
it
can
be
used
also
as
a
basis
for
future
work.
So
we
can
rely
on
this
document
as
a
working
good
document
and
to
provide
the
comments
on
this
document
and
to
see
how
to
progress.
A
This
document
for
work,
the
it
is
proposed
after
a
discussion
in
the
triple
a
director
right
here
so
expertly
regulate
I,
don't
even
remember
the
name,
but
it
was
proposed
to
have
a
kind
of
bcp,
because
this
one
will
not
be
used
only
for
radius
will
be
used
for
diabetic,
word
sense
and
also
for
anyone
relying
on
the
on
this
information.
So
yeah.
A
So
I
think
this
was
mainly
already
discussed
at
the
last
meeting.
I
think
it
was
more
of
the
new
charter.
That's
it
would
just
do
I
liked.
What's
happened
for
this
document
and
the
last
one
is
the
data
types.
So,
from
our
point
of
view,
the
document
is
stable
enough
to
be
used
also
as
a
working
two
documents.
The
last
version
contain
all
the
capture,
all
the
comments
received.
A
A
This
is
the
dominica
to
recession,
documents
so
I'll
and
proposed
to
so
I
light
a
mistake
in
the
documents
regarding
the
presence
of
the
error
code
that
we
ever
cause
attribute
other
so
for
Sierra,
crest
or
Hispanic
request,
and
it
was
said
that
if
the
Act
also
the
error
codes
could
be
there
and
this
one
was
agreed
by
by
Bernard
and
Stefano
slicing
than
a
double.
That
is
the
fun
and
they
are
not
raised.
Also.
A
The
fact
that
if
we
correct
the
section
336
to
clarify
that
the
error
code
could
be
also
present
in
the
act,
we
need
also
to
update
the
text
in
the
section
3
dot,
Phi
2
Phi,
Phi,
that
this
error
codes
may
now
be
included
also
in
the
coa
coa
ack
and
disconnect
act.
Packets,
so
I
think
it's.
It
was
agreed
by
their
nod.
Alan
Stephanie
sake,
also
with
that
and
I'm.
Okay.
A
C
B
A
A
So
we
need
to
update
the
text
because
Allah
testing
is
now
up
out
of
date,
for
instance,
is
not
requiring
any
more
to
provide
to
enforce
interoperability
between
diameter
and
radius,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
thing
already
done,
for
instance,
attribute
space
extension,
the
wireless
LAN
attributes,
the
new
transport
and
so
on.
So
a
new
text
was
proposed
two
weeks
ago1
weeks
ago,
and
it
is
proposed
to
to
work
on
this
text
to
agree
on
the
new
charter.
A
A
A
Actually,
I'm
not
even
sure
that
I
have
captured
the
right
package.
The
idea
was
to
remove
what
would
remove,
but
I
think
that
points
on
the
second
section
was
removed,
but
I
would
have
to
check.
I
think
that
the
main
point
also
would
be
to
recap
the
work
as
a
proposed
work
items.
So,
as
I
said,
we
have
the
CR
proxy
and
there
is
an
ongoing
discussion
on
the
text
here.
A
A
So
from
a
working
group
point
of
view,
we
need
comments
on
that,
just
to
ensure
that
the
shutter
would
reflect
the
agreement
of
the
working
group
and
also
some
milestone
are
purple
and
to
see.
If
you
can
go
with
my
son
I
think
we
could.
We
should
be
able
to
go
faster,
but
we
know
also
that
we
take
some
time
in
the
red
X,
the
working
group.
So
you
will
see
that
we
are
not
too
ambitious,
but
we
need
to
go
forward
with
this
technique
and
for
all
the
documents.
A
We
need
review
review
with
you,
so
it
will
be
my
main
comment.
As
a
new
chair
of
the
red
X
14
I
think
that
there
is
a
lot
of
interesting
topics.
We
know
that
there
is
a
lot
of
activities
around
radius
and
religious
exemption,
that
we
need
maybe
more
activities
on
the
mailing
list
and
more
review,
and
not
only
regarding
our
own
document.
That
also
document
provided
by
other
members
of
the
working.
A
And
we
have
for
now
40
minutes
meeting.
So
the
floor
is
open,
each
have
anything
to
say
please
otherwise,
I
will
stop
the
meeting.
I
think
it
was
the
PTB
poses
as
a
son
and
Alan
we're
not
able
to
get
in
the
room,
so
it
could
change.
Also
the
the
level
of
the
discussion,
but
the
main
point,
or
now
it's
to
go
forward
so
to
come
and
drink
the
working
group
passport
for
the
working
good
document
and
to
agree
on
the
shuttle.
It
will
be
the
the
summary
of
this
meeting.