Re: [Emu] I-D Action: draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-16.txt

Alan DeKok <> Fri, 11 June 2021 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD6D3A08F9 for <>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FnlulMvFxZDL for <>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32F6C3A094E for <>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6457F5A8; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 17:32:58 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Alan DeKok <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 13:32:56 -0400
Cc: Roman Danyliw <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Mohit Sethi M <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Emu] I-D Action: draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-16.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 17:33:15 -0000

On Jun 11, 2021, at 12:20 PM, Mohit Sethi M <> wrote:
> I find it odd that you claim your suggestions have been ignored or rejected.

  So -16 does address my review from May 6?  Could you please go through my review of today, and point out in -16 where each of my comments was addressed?

  As a reminder, many of those comments go back to my earlier review of -13 on March 13.   So we now have -14, -15, and -16 which (so far as I can tell) don't address substantial portions of the reviews.

> We have created many issues on github  ( and submitted many pull requests addressing your comments ( 
> When I merged this PR in the morning:, it looked like all of your comments had been addressed in the PR. Joe (the other co-chair) had approved this PR?

  I had sent a review of -13 on March 3.  And another one May 6.  And another today.  The second and third reviews were largely copied from the first one.  And contained issues which (so far as I can tell) have not been addressed, much less discussed.  These issues do not appear to be addressed in that PR.

> As authors of a working group document of a voluntary standards organization, we have been doing voluntary service over the last several years. We started working on this document in 2018 ( You have been helping us with the document since the beginning. So thank you for your voluntary service as well. While it is not mandatory, helping us with github issues/PRs related to your reviews can help us ensure that your comments are not inadvertently left unaddressed; and that this community effort moves forward faster.

  I'm asking that my reviews be discussed and/or addressed, by the authors, in the WG.  I didn't expect to get that particular response.  It is distinctly unusual.

  Alan DeKok.