[Emu] AD review of draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis-06

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hello!

I conducted an AD review of draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis-06 and this document is in good shape.  Thanks for all of the work on it.  I have minor questions and editorial nits which can be addressed with the IETF Last Call feedback.

Minor:
-- Can you revisit the history -- why was RFC4187 informational?  I'm guessing this draft is informational because it updates RFC4187, right?

-- Section 7.1.  Per "The use of pseudonyms in this situation is at best limited" - unclear to me what this means?  Is this say that pseudonyms is not recommended because the re-use is creates a tracking opportunity (per the next sentence)?

-- Section 7.1.  Per "Outside 5G, there is a full choice to use ...", what is a "full choice"?

Editorial Nits:

-- Section 1.  s/EAP-AKA' is also an algorithm update for the used hash functions./EAP-AKA' also updates the algorithm used in the hash functions./

-- Section 1.  s/The update ensures/This update ensures/

-- Section 1.  Typo. s/how how/how/

-- Section 3.5.  Consider giving the table an explicit number (e.g., Table 1) and s/The attribute table is shown below/The attribute table is shown in Table 1./

-- Section 5.2.  s/However, to ensure privacy/However, to enhance privacy/ -- there is no "absolute privacy".

-- Section 5.2. s/for at attacker/for an attacker/

-- Section 7.3.  s/an backwards/a backwards/

Regards,
Roman