Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-harkins-emu-eap-pwd-04.txt

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:46:17 -0400

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-harkins-emu-eap-pwd-04.txt

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<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.

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC 
but I have a few comments

Substantial
===========

Section 2.6.4.1

* It is possible that I missed something but I did not see the function 
"F" defined in this document.

e.g. -> compute ks = F(KS)

Minor
=====

* IANA considerations : Random function

The "Specification required" policy already implies use of a designated 
expert and hence the "and Expert Review" clause is not needed.

* The word hunt-and-peck used in the document is not very well defined. 
I have seen this being used to describe inexperienced typists but I 
could not see how to apply the analogy to this EAP method.

Process
=======

* The draft mentions that it is on the Standards track, but the tracker 
says it is Informational. Please update the draft to reflect the 
proposed status.

Thanks
Suresh