Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis-06

[Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,

Thank you for the answer and for addressing the issues raised in my review.
Looks fine to me by now, I am waiting for version -07 to check the precise
edits.

Regards,

Dan


On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 2:28 PM Jari Arkko <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks for your review, Dan.
>
> Some responses below. We are also about to publish a new document version.
>
> > This is a very detailed and well-written document that describes a new
> > specification of the specification of EAP-AKA' to support 5G
> deployments. This
> > specification is ready, but I have a concern about the relationship to
> the 3GPP
> > specifications that I would suggest to be clarified by the authors and
> > considered by the IESG.
> >
> > Major issues:
> >
> > 1. The document includes the following statements related to the 5G and
> 3GPP
> > relevant specifications:
> >
> > In the Abstract:
> >
> >> This version of EAP-AKA' specification specifies the protocol
> >   behaviour for 5G deployments as well.
> >
> > In Section 1:
> >
> >> Note: This specification refers only to the 5G specifications.
> >      Any further update that affects, for instance, key derivation is
> >      something that EAP-AKA' implementations should take into account.
> >      Upon such updates there will be a need to both update the
> >      specification and the implementations.
> >
> > The first quoted text seems to indicate that the specification refers to
> 5G and
> > other deployments. The second quoted text seems to indicate that the
> > specification refers only to 5G. The two statements seem to be
> contradictory.
>
> The text in the draft is confusing and wrong. But the actual situation is
> that the draft refers to both 4G and 5G specifications and to the best of
> our knowledge applies to both.
>
> The text has been clarified in -07.
>
> > 2. The References sections (both Normative and Informative) include a
> note that
> > advises the RFC Editor to ...
> >
> > Editors, "All 3GPP references should be updated to the
> >              latest Release 15 version before publishing.".
> >
> > Is this sufficient? I mean is this a pure editorial task for updating the
> > references? Are the authors certain that none of the changes between now
> and
> > the publication of the 3GPP latest releases will not impact this
> document? I am
> > a little nervous about relying on a set of 5G-related work which is
> still in
> > evolution. Maybe a technical pass by the authors is desirable before
> > publication?
>
> Rel-15 documents are pretty stable now :-) We need to make the final
> references point to the right versions, however. We believe we’ve done that
> in -07.
>
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> >
> > Appendix B.  Changes from RFC 4187 to RFC 5448 is a copy-paste of
> Appendix A in
> > RFC 5448. Was this necessary? In any case, it would probably be better
> to avoid
> > any ambiguity by replacing in the second sentence 'this document' by
> 'RFC 5448’.
>
> We believe the document still needs to describe the changes to RFC 4187
> because going forward this new RFC will be the main reference to both
> EAP-AKA’ and what updates were also made in EAP-AKA. However, that section
> is and was in RFC 5448 very misleading. It talks about what has been added
> to EAP-AKA, but without being clear about that.
>
> The text has been corrected and clarified in -07.
>
> Jari
>
>