[Int-dir] Re: [Emu] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-16

Alan DeKok <adekok@gmail.com> Thu, 30 May 2024 17:49 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Alan DeKok <adekok@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <171538131078.51665.6151553946391130729@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7E18352E-4541-49C6-AF6E-1ABB30506142@gmail.com>
References: <171538131078.51665.6151553946391130729@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Haoyu Song <haoyu.song@futurewei.com>
Message-ID-Hash: GMD34EW57X2PAJQVQ5TVTFD2DZQBAN4N
CC: int-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis.all@ietf.org, emu@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Subject: [Int-dir] Re: [Emu] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-16
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/Gua6oxpuVMQGnzdP2xjrYanZOyQ>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 17:49:55 -0000

On May 10, 2024, at 6:48 PM, Haoyu Song via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Haoyu Song
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I’m the assigned INTDIR reviewer for this document. This document defines the
> Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol V1 which obsoletes RFC7010.
> 
> I couldn’t find any technical issues, but some nits as listed below.
> 
> Please spell out the acronyms in the first use, e.g., PKCS

  I've updated the ones I see.


> Pg13 “In some cases such as onboarding …”.  It may be necessary to elaborate
> the terms used here.

  Updated with some additional comments.

> Pg14  “It will therefore no way of correlating the server identity…”  Grammer
> check

  "have" no way...

> Pg18 “MUST accompany the TLV with it's own Crypto-Binding TLV”     it’s own ->
> its own

  Fixed.

> Pg18 “to communicate a users password,”   users -> user’s

  Fixed.

> Pg 20.  “EAP- FAST [RFC4851]”   remove the space after EAP-

  Fixed.

> Pg 22. “it requires a particular authentication mechanism be run”  be run -> to
> be run

  Fixed.

> Pg. 24 “in all phases of TEAP’  all -> both?

  Yes.  Updated.

> Pg27. “The device authentications, and obtains new credentials via” 
> authentications, -> authenticates

  Fixed.

> Pg31. “If the server didn't initiate …”   didn’t -> did not

  Fixed.

> Pg 34. “If all TLVs in a message are marked optional and none are understood by
> the peer, then a NAK TLV or Result TLV could be sent to the other side in order
> to continue the conversation.” The two sentences seem logically conflicting
> with each other.

  Addressed with updated text.

> Pg38. “The behavior of the Result TLV is further discussed in Section 3.6.5 and
> Section 3.9.3 A Result” missing period before A Result.

  Fixed.

> Pg.46. “after one or more of the requested items has been processed …”   has ->
> have

   Fixed.

> Pg 60. “The Identity-Hint TLV is an optional TLV which can sent by the peer” 
> can sent -> can be sent=

   Fixed.

> Pg 60. “the format and definition of these identities is entirely site local.” 
> is -> are

   Fixed.

> Pg 64. “Note that using a MSK…” a -> an

  Fixed.

  I'll issue a new rev shortly, when I'm finished going over the reviews.

[Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-em… Haoyu Song via Datatracker
[Int-dir] Re: [Emu] Intdir telechat review of dra… Alan DeKok