S.Winter started with the usual agenda bashing. Then, he provided the documents status: The large packet for RADIUS TCP packet (draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets-05) passed the IETF LC; no major issues were raised but a revised document is needed. The data types document (draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-02) will be sent to the IESG. RADIUS Extensions for Network-Assisted Multipath TCP (MPTCP) (draft-boucadair-mptcp-radius-01) is proposed work item (new charter) while other drafts dropped off the radar (draft-klammorrissette-radext-very-common-vsas and draft-aravind-radext-message-bundling). See the Chairs’ slides for more details.

M. Boucadair presented the slides for RADIUS Extensions for IP Port Configuration and Reporting. He recalled that the draft passed the WGLC in April 2015 and new revisions (07, and 08) were released to address Shepherded comments received in March 2016. One issue is still pending: Either maintain the approach in the current version of the draft that is, as the three attributes defined in the draft carry similar data, the TLVs have the same name and number, when encapsulated in any one of the three parent attributes, or follow the Lionel’s proposed alternate approach that is, define registries for each nested attribute (a TLV have a number that depends on its parent attribute). M. Boucadair recalled that a need is to be made clear for future specifications. It was agreed to maintain the current IANA assignment approach and proceed with the document publication process.

A. DeKok went through his slides (CoA Proxying). (The quality of the audio is not that good). He clarified first the open issues (e.g., proxy spoofing is always possible, mandatory attributes need to be removed before being sent to the NAS). He suggested two text proposals for the removal of mandatory attributes. S. Winter indicated that the wording of the second proposal needs to be clarified, especially what is meant by (all “server”). Jim wasn’t comfortable with the second proposal. Alan will use the first and explain why it is necessarily. Alan suggested a wording in the mailing list.

S. Winter presented the cooperation population draft (he went through the slides). Several comments were raised in the mailing list recently. S. Winter provided an update since the WG adoption: e.g., introduce a terminology section, maintain the same advice, etc. Then, he went through the list of discussion points raised in the mailing list (refer to the slides). He suggested following the NAI wording for the point about normalisation: “EAP peer may normalise before he will put that in the document. As per the point about all EAP methods, Lionel raised a case that is supported at the 3GPP (but he needs to further check) and suggested to maintain the text in the draft because the use case is relevant. Also, Lionel asked if B. Adoba agreed with the proposed resolution.

M. Boucadair went through his slides on “RADIUS Extensions for Network-Assisted Multipath TCP”. The deployment model targets aggregating the resources associated with multiple network attachments managed by the same network provider. MPTCP features are enabled in the CPE while dedicated functions (called MPTCP Concentrators) are enabled at the network side. Authorized CPEs are provisioned with one or a list of MPTCP concentrators; each identified by one or multiple IP addresses. This deployment model leverages on network authorisation procedures (RADIUS-based). The proposed attributes follow the recommendation in I-D.ietf-radext-datatypes and RFC6158. The draft was already reviewed by A. DeKok. Several questions were raised by L. Morand and S. Winter about MPTCP and the role of the CPE. M. Boucadair clarified that the CPE is not aware about the RADIUS; RADIUS exchange occurs between the NAS and the AAA server when the CPE attaches the network. If the CPE is authorized to make use of MPTCP Concentrators’ resources, a list of MPTCP-Concentrator-IPvx attributes will be returned to the NAS that will pass their content to the DHCP server will use their content to reply to a requesting CPE. M. Boucadair asked for considering adding a charter work item for this draft. L. Morand will review the draft.