Re: [IPsec] Comments to draft-ietf-ipsecme-eap-mutual-02.txt

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tero,

thanks for your comments. I (obviously) disagree with your position on 
EAP, but I'll leave it at that. The WG decided we will specify this 
extension, and the market will decide in what exact scenarios it is, or 
isn't, useful.

I will change the text in Sec. 3.

Regards,
	Yaron

On 05/18/2010 03:58 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> I read this document and it seems to be mostly ok.
>
> I might disagree on some parts of the section 1 text talking why EAP
> is needed (I think the main reason was to support legacy systems. The
> public keys are flexible enough to meet requirements of many
> deployment scenarios unless your requirement includes "that must
> support old legacy infrastructure"), but I do not think there is need
> to change text there.
>
> The section 3 should add text telling what protocol ID is used for the
> notification, just like most of the other extensions do: "Protocol ID
> and the SPI Size fields MUST both be sent as 0.", i.e. change:
>
>                                               The SPI size field is set
>     to zero, and there is no additional data associated with this
>     notification.
>
> to
>
>                             The protocol ID and SPI size fields are set
>     to zero, and there is no additional data associated with this
>     notification.