Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req-08

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Sun, 28 November 2010 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9912B3A6B46; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:35:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mRVf008war82; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:35:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61253A6AEF; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so3486584wwa.13 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:36:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:thread-index :content-language; bh=rzz45F+WBS0jfZLtbVb9lk/zcNYfF3q57ntRRhCBj0M=; b=TRsCbMsdocNOAujsZaJzLx/SoLU4ttZrQH0iUrKdAff49LcFHteX4OsMU/qIu6PhiM sTYvK9sQm0n+iR2KOecoXgQJ+inqPi+YWJiuOXbf3aVWC+rONu7qELT3bZdC+lsBmiWj F232z4ou7TIMN5q2C00iGc00FCQ95aFitiAck=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; b=MBwbGs4VitDwfs3IHHxiTVb21xtBRI0Ncou1zxGmokzdNtu6BdMNw64QvWAvgiBHLJ ow0ubgySS2vpZx6RDx/hIKgtEShYQNlMUB1gcW8p8Cc2Rz5SBZ5VgWMbRaul3jPxpssm MCouiZ21+ITXdbgH817Cgb+X+4cvkMGdL2D8o=
Received: by 10.227.127.134 with SMTP id g6mr4429691wbs.54.1290929782864; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:36:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from windows8d787f9 (bzq-79-180-54-185.red.bezeqint.net [79.180.54.185]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm1741891wet.24.2010.11.27.23.36.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 27 Nov 2010 23:36:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'General Area Review Team' <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req-08
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 09:34:45 +0200
Message-ID: <4cf20674.8709d80a.08db.ffff9019@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02BE_01CB8EDF.80B35A40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Act0i1+7Caim7pq9STWMSXfbAMuiRQ==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-req.all@tools.ietf.org, 'IETF-Discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 07:35:22 -0000

Hi,

I sent the following review on October 25th but did not see and response.

 

Roni Even

 

 

 

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-emu-eaptunnel-req-08

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2010-10-25

IETF LC End Date: 2010-11-10

IESG Telechat date:2010-12-2

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

1.       In section 2  why not reference RFC 2119 or at least  copy the
definition from RFC 2119 for  the capitalized term.

2.       In section 3.9 when you say "if this technique is used", by this do
you mean certificate -less or the flow defined in the previous sentence.

3.       In section 4.6.3 the first paragraph defines the requirements for
Cryptographic Binding. It looks to me like the rest of the section talks
about a specific use case, so why is it in the requirements section and not
in section 3. 

 

 

 

Nits/editorial comments: