Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10

I'm satisfied with the responses. I think it would not hurt to add some of the explanations from the various emails into the draft, but that's by no means a show stopper.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Mar 26, 2014, at 7:17 AM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In 802.1X-2010, the EAP Key Name is  actually needed to calculate the session keys. So if it is unavailable, the NAS won't be able to decrypt traffic. Therefore treating the Accept as a Reject is probably the only viable option.
> 
>> On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:42 AM, "Jouni Korhonen" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I don't think there is anything that needs to be done for 2.2. It is
>> a normal capability exchange type of mechanism.
>> 
>> The text is IMHO clear:
>> "in situations where the Attribute is required to provision service.."
>> 
>> Then the lack of EAP-Key-Name means the service cannot be provisioned
>> and the NAS can safely interpret that as an Access-Reject, when 
>> appropriate by the deployment.
>> 
>> NAS doesn't include the attribute if it is not needed. And if it does,
>> the current text allows still accepting the service regardless the
>> lack of the attribute in the Access-Accept.
>> 
>> 
>> - Jouni
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the review. I did not see a response or change regarding 2.1 or 2.2. Does this need to be addressed? Authors?
>>> 
>>> Jari
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear authors,
>>>> 
>>>> Can you please follow up on that one.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards, Benoit
>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>>>> 
>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>>>> you may receive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10
>>>>> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
>>>>> Review Date: 2014-01-31
>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2014-02-04
>>>>> 
>>>>> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC. I have a small number of minor comments that may be worth considering prior to publication.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Major issues: None
>>>>> 
>>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 2.1, last paragraph:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does the last sentence imply Allowed-Called-Station-Id actually should (or SHOULD) not be used in non-wireless scenarios? (I note that the Network-Id-Name section talks about how 802.1X NID-Names should not be included in Called-Station-Id, but rather put in Network-Id-Name. Does that apply here as well?
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 2.2, last paragraph: "Since a NAS will typically only include a EAP-Key-Name Attribute in an Access-Request in situations where the Attribute is required to provision service, if an EAP-Key-Name Attribute is included in an Access-Request but is not present in the Access-Accept, the NAS SHOULD treat the Access-Accept as though it were an Access-Reject. "
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there a backwards compatibility issue? What if a NAS sends the field to a server that doesn't implement this draft? Is there an assumption that a NAS that supports this draft will only work with a server that also supports it?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or more to the point, is the "...typically only include...where required..." strong enough to require a normative SHOULD? Seems like this would discourage the inclusion of EAP-Key-Name in the non-typical case of it _not_ being required. Is that the intent?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- section 2.8:
>>>>> 
>>>>> It might be worth expanding "EAPoL"
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> .
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gen-art mailing list
>>>> Gen-art@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art