On Tue, 22 May 2007, 1:57pm, Gonzalo Camarillo wRote:
Hi,
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Draft: draft-ietf-radext-rfc4590bis-01.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Review Date: 22 May 2006
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a PS RFC.
Comments:
RFC 3579, which appears in the References, is an Informational RFC
(i.e., it is a down reference).
Meaning this should appear in section 9.2 instead of 9.1? Or that the
text should some somehow refer back to some standard reference versus
rfc3579. Sorry for my ignorant question.
Section 2.1 explains that information sent over a TLS connection to the
RADIUS client may be sent in cleartext to the RADIUS server, but does
not give any recommendation on what to do in that case. A further
explanation or a recommendation would be useful.
This is discussed more in Section 8.2. What is the best way to approach
this, prehaps by adding a sentence to the end of the paragraph like:
"2.1 RADIUS Client Behavior
The attributes described ..... result in information
intentionally protected by HTTP-style clients being sent in the clear
during RADIUS exchange. Ways to mitigate this exposure are discussed in
section 8.2"
Or is it prefered to summarize the problem in section 2.1.
thanks,
-david
Thanks,
Gonzalo
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
