Re: [HOKEY] Fwd: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-07

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Stephen and all:
We have just done the update. Diff from previous version:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-08

Would you like to go ahead?

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>
To: "Tina TSOU" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] Fwd: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-07


> 
> Hi,
> 
> IETF LC is ended for this.
> 
> I think the only comment I saw a gen-art review (is
> that right?) but that there are changes resulting from
> that so I've marked this as revised I-D needed. Please
> submit a -08 that includes the changes needed. (I'm not
> sure if any of those will require something different
> from IANA, but if they do please also respond to IANA's
> mail, cc'ing me, if their actions are changed.)
> 
> As soon as we have that I can put this on an IESG
> telechat agenda,
> 
> Thanks,
> Stephen.
> 
> 
> On 02/04/2012 07:21 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
>> Good catch. Thank u, Miguel.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:04 AM, "Stephen Farrell"<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> FYI
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-07
>>> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:51:36 +0100
>>> From: Miguel A. Garcia<[e-mail]>
>>> To: Zhen Cao<[e-mail]>, Hui Deng<[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Stephen Farrell<[e-mail]>
>>> CC: General Area Review Team<[e-mail]>
>>>
>>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (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 comments you may receive.
>>>
>>> Document: draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-07
>>> Reviewer: Miguel Garcia<[e-mail]>
>>> Review Date: 2011-01-02
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2012-02-07
>>>
>>> Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described
>>> in the review.
>>>
>>> Major issues:
>>>
>>> - None
>>>
>>> Minor issues:
>>>
>>> - The main problem I have with this draft is the lack of normative text
>>> (RFC 2119 reserved words) in relevant paragraphs. If interoperability is
>>> to be granted, an effort should be taken in adding quite a few more
>>> normative statements.
>>>
>>> However, having said that, the section where I find more that there
>>> should be more normative text, is Section 3, which is an "Overview"
>>> section. In general, an overview section should use descriptive, but not
>>> normative text.
>>>
>>> For example, take the last paragraph in Page 5 (that continues to Page
>>> 6). One possible change is to make normative the text and move it outside
>>> a section whose title is "Overview".
>>>
>>>    Upon receiving the message, the ERP/AAK server MUST first use the
>>>    keyName indicated in the keyName-NAI to look up the rIK and MUST
>>>    check the integrity and freshness of the message. Then the ERP/AAK
>>>    server MUST verify the identity of the peer by checking the username
>>>    portion of the KeyName-NAI.  If any of the checks fail, the server
>>>    MUST send an early- authentication finish message (EAP-Finish/Re-auth
>>>    with E-flag set) with the Result flag set to '1'.  Next, the server
>>>    MUST authorize the CAP specified in the CAP-Identifier TLV.  In
>>>    success case, the server MUST derive a pMSK from the pRK for each CAP
>>>    carried in the the CAP-Identifier field using the sequence number
>>>    associated with CAP-Identifier as an input to the key derivation.
>>>    (see d. in the figure 1).
>>>
>>>    Then the ERP/AAK server MUST transport the pMSK to the authorized CAP
>>>    via AAA Section 7 as described in figure 2 (see e.1,e.2 in the figure
>>>    2). Note that key distribution in the figure 2 is one part of step d.
>>>    in the figure 1.
>>>
>>> The the last paragraph in Section 3 also contains an "Optionally", which
>>> I believe should be replaced with a capitalized "OPTIONAL"
>>>
>>> Another instance: towards the end of Section 5.2, the text reads:
>>>
>>>    HMAC-SHA256-128 is mandatory to implement and should be enabled in
>>>    the default configuration.
>>>
>>> and should probably be:
>>>
>>>    HMAC-SHA256-128 is REQUIRED to be implemented and SHOULD be enabled in
>>>    the default configuration.
>>>
>>> Similarly, the last paragraph in Section 5.2 reads:
>>>
>>>    If the EAP-Initiate/Re-auth packet is not supported by the SAP, it is
>>>    discarded silently.
>>>
>>> and should probably be:
>>>
>>>    If the EAP-Initiate/Re-auth packet is not supported by the SAP, it
>>>    SHOULD be discarded silently.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Another topic, Section 9 (IANA Considerations) reads:
>>>
>>>    Further, this document registers a Early authentication usage label
>>>    from the "USRK Key Labels" name space with a value:
>>>
>>>       EAP Early-Authentication Root [e-mail]
>>>
>>>
>>> I am missing the sentence to name the master registry where the USRK Key
>>> Labels subregistry is stored. This is the Extended Master Session Key
>>> (EMSK) Parameters registry (I guess). And probably this comment is also
>>> valid for the rest of the IANA actions: the main registry is not named,
>>> and it is hard to find it.
>>>
>>>
>>> /Miguel
>>> --
>>> Miguel A. Garcia
>>> [phone]
>>> Ericsson Spain
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> HOKEY mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
>>
> _______________________________________________
> HOKEY mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey