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

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Fri, 11 June 2021 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD6D3A08F9 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FnlulMvFxZDL for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32F6C3A094E for <emu@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.46.129] (24-52-251-6.cable.teksavvy.com [24.52.251.6]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6457F5A8; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 17:32:58 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.6\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <f548ccd9-5e2b-6f5c-1c0f-83da13ae8e6c@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 13:32:56 -0400
Cc: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, "emu@ietf.org" <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3B34333E-E7BB-4A35-BF26-D864B684998F@deployingradius.com>
References: <162341585509.25821.12001005879203873531@ietfa.amsl.com> <fde152d8-ff88-ea03-cbad-330a302a9442@ericsson.com> <49E7E4C8-CB9C-4A96-A7E4-1EE778BD58F5@deployingradius.com> <a9934d97-c01d-ad9a-bb95-f397d73e6140@ericsson.com> <3039B712-15E2-4C32-95C4-48CE5B73A0F7@deployingradius.com> <f548ccd9-5e2b-6f5c-1c0f-83da13ae8e6c@ericsson.com>
To: Mohit Sethi M <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/zUtGCC4C6cR7NapGiBqfBcfKkeM>
Subject: Re: [Emu] I-D Action: draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-16.txt
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emu/>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 17:33:15 -0000

On Jun 11, 2021, at 12:20 PM, Mohit Sethi M <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com> 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  (https://github.com/emu-wg/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed+Alan) and submitted many pull requests addressing your comments (https://github.com/emu-wg/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13/pulls?q=is%3Apr+Alan+is%3Aclosed). 
> 
> When I merged this PR in the morning: https://github.com/emu-wg/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13/pull/71, 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 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mattsson-eap-tls13). 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.