I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-clancy-eap-pax-09.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the
FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.
Summary:
========
[This is a re-review of a draft which I reviewed -08 for IETF LC.]
This draft is almost ready for PS. There are a couple of minor issues
that need clarification.
Issues:
=======
s2.2:
If the underlying
EAP transport protocol is known, then the client SHOULD differentiate
between these values.
What are the consequences of not doing... under what circumstances would
it be reasonable or necessary not to differentiate?
What is the mapping between types of EAP transport protocol and field
values ( straight PPP is obvious but what other types map to the two
kinds?). What happens if other certificate types are defined? And other
transports?
s3.2: The len field is still not precisely defined. It appears that it
is the length in octets of the corresponding value field in octets
encoded as a two octet binary integer.
Editorial:
==========
s1.2: Expand NAI. A reference to a suitable RFC that explains
Diffie-Hellman generators would be useful.
s3.2: I think it would be good to emphasise that the MAC is computed
just over the value field and not the length field [If I was an
implementor I am not sure how happy I would be about this!].
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
