Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-07

From: Meral Shirazipour <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:47:07 +0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq  .

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-07
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2013-07-30
IETF LC End Date: 2013-07-30
IESG Telechat date: NA

Summary:
This draft is almost ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments.

Nits/editorial comments:
Many sections of the document are a direct copy paste of RFC4851(EAP-FAST) with a minor change: "EAP-FAST"->"TEAP".
Since RFC4851 is mentioned as being well adopted, is there a reason why it has not been used as reference point and then only mention the diffs in more detail? (for the sections concerned).
Appendix B is useful, but the above suggestion could have made the document a lot shorter and easier to understand by people already familiar with EAP-FAST.
Unless this draft is to replace RFC4851? In which case the abstract should mention this.
e.g.
[Page 20], Section 3.7 Fragmentation, is a copy of RFC4851's Section 3.7 with "EAP-FAST"->"TEAP".
Why not use RFC4851's Fragmentation proposal as a reference point and just mention what is different (e.g. nothing but the EAP-Type in this case).

Nits:
[Page 6], Section 1.2, reference [RFC5077] appears twice.
[Page 21], section 3.8, paragraph 2, "which the the peer"--typo-->remove extra "the"
[Page 24], Section 3.8.4, paragraph 2, "succ;essfully"--typo-->"successfully"
[Page 56], line 3, "Note: Peer's are"---->"Peers"
[Page 73], Section 7.6, "is remoted"--typo-->"is remote"

Best Regards,
Meral
---
Meral Shirazipour
Ericsson
Research
www.ericsson.com