Huawei Port Range Configuration Options for PPP IP Control Protocol (IPCP)
RFC 6431

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-24 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I agree with Adrian's concern.

The draft uses the term "couple", but I think that the term "tuple" is the more conventional term.

(Wesley Eddy) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-22)
No email
send info
In section 2.2.1 there is confusion about randomization.  The ports are selected psuedo-randomly, definitely not randomly.

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-23 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I'd share in some of the comments as to the maturity level of
this spec. But that's an ISE issue I guess.

I also don't get why it says that other functions may be
"predefined (sic) in *Standards Track* documents" when
its an independent submission and nothing to do with
the standards track.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-23 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Seeing no RFC 5742 issues here, I am balloting "No Objection".

However, please specify the byte order of the binary fields. Although network byte order (the most significant byte first) is almost universally used, there are some exceptions, so it is important to spell this out.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-24 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
#1) This probably shows my complete lack of understanding, but I just wanted to check.

draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10 says:

   o  the Dynamic Ports, also known as the Private or Ephemeral Ports,
      from 49152-65535 (never assigned)

and RFC 6056 says:

  o  The Dynamic and/or Private Ports, 49152 through 65535

   The dynamic port range defined by IANA consists of the 49152-65535
   range, and is meant for the selection of ephemeral ports.

If draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option provides another option for picking a port in the range supported by RFC 6056 why does it address ports in the range 1024-65535 and not 49152-65535?

#2) The draft makes the following claim:

   For improved security an option for delegating cryptographically
   random port range is defined.

Improved over what?  Nothing, the algorithms presented in RFC 6056, or something else?

#3) This didn't make sense to me:

   Other port generator functions may be predefined in Standards Track
   documents and allocated a not yet allocated 'function' value within
   the corresponding sub-option type field.

I think you're saying that there's an option to specify another cryptographic algorithm in "function" element (e.g., "2")?  I'm curious why you'd need to define them in a Standards Track document.  Would that document be updating some internal Huawei registry?  Based on the empty IANA considerations, I assume it's not going to be hosted at IANA.