Hi Jari, Thank you for the answer and for addressing the issues raised in my review. Looks fine to me by now, I am waiting for version -07 to check the precise edits.
Regards, Dan On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 2:28 PM Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net> wrote: > Thanks for your review, Dan. > > Some responses below. We are also about to publish a new document version.. > > > This is a very detailed and well-written document that describes a new > > specification of the specification of EAP-AKA' to support 5G > deployments. This > > specification is ready, but I have a concern about the relationship to > the 3GPP > > specifications that I would suggest to be clarified by the authors and > > considered by the IESG. > > > > Major issues: > > > > 1. The document includes the following statements related to the 5G and > 3GPP > > relevant specifications: > > > > In the Abstract: > > > >> This version of EAP-AKA' specification specifies the protocol > > behaviour for 5G deployments as well. > > > > In Section 1: > > > >> Note: This specification refers only to the 5G specifications. > > Any further update that affects, for instance, key derivation is > > something that EAP-AKA' implementations should take into account. > > Upon such updates there will be a need to both update the > > specification and the implementations. > > > > The first quoted text seems to indicate that the specification refers to > 5G and > > other deployments. The second quoted text seems to indicate that the > > specification refers only to 5G. The two statements seem to be > contradictory. > > The text in the draft is confusing and wrong. But the actual situation is > that the draft refers to both 4G and 5G specifications and to the best of > our knowledge applies to both. > > The text has been clarified in -07. > > > 2. The References sections (both Normative and Informative) include a > note that > > advises the RFC Editor to ... > > > > Editors, "All 3GPP references should be updated to the > > latest Release 15 version before publishing.". > > > > Is this sufficient? I mean is this a pure editorial task for updating the > > references? Are the authors certain that none of the changes between now > and > > the publication of the 3GPP latest releases will not impact this > document? I am > > a little nervous about relying on a set of 5G-related work which is > still in > > evolution. Maybe a technical pass by the authors is desirable before > > publication? > > Rel-15 documents are pretty stable now :-) We need to make the final > references point to the right versions, however. We believe we’ve done that > in -07. > > > Minor issues: > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > Appendix B. Changes from RFC 4187 to RFC 5448 is a copy-paste of > Appendix A in > > RFC 5448. Was this necessary? In any case, it would probably be better > to avoid > > any ambiguity by replacing in the second sentence 'this document' by > 'RFC 5448’. > > We believe the document still needs to describe the changes to RFC 4187 > because going forward this new RFC will be the main reference to both > EAP-AKA’ and what updates were also made in EAP-AKA. However, that section > is and was in RFC 5448 very misleading. It talks about what has been added > to EAP-AKA, but without being clear about that. > > The text has been corrected and clarified in -07. > > Jari > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
