Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-clancy-eap-pax-09

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:46:05 +0100

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-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art