Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 27 February 2014 16:03 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692EA1A038C for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:03:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 78snEhXdMrJx for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:02:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7921A0382 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:02:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2014; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393516973; x=1394726573; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ja4IZIyqBnErKK/DvDxlTP/VEzret3JWIm9DuXnHJzM=; b=LqP/JtVAKCAFc9i7RnDr9oWC1FFWU9hoFGXiiKiG9NF00Zhs+TvhE1N+ FlJnM91qmU+RoxgQU+hTJGsd4ktB4oozmcMETgzj177H1nzWNfFBLlZOU 65wrB3RY2rwOMXlQpYXNQonknvahh6xohjrOmz2UeKdP4srA/q6Ws4HNJ 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjoFANNgD1OQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABagwY7wWKBGxZ0giYBAQQ4QAEQCxQNFg8JAwIBAgFFBgEMAQcBAYd1DcpxF4xkgXEHhDcBA5g4gTKFGItggy08
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,555,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="5666228"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2014 16:02:51 +0000
Received: from [10.61.205.235] ([10.61.205.235]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1RG2pNr021437; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:02:51 GMT
Message-ID: <530F38BE.3030508@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:08:14 +0000
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <8C9EE7F2-AA3D-482A-B469-4A147D143954@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C9EE7F2-AA3D-482A-B469-4A147D143954@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/JJehG786udmMm1xXIoRQ4ehtFlk
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org Team (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:03:02 -0000
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] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-radext-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-rad… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-rad… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-rad… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-rad… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-rad… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-rad… Jari Arkko