Subject: [HOKEY] An errata on RFC 5247

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:58:27 -0500

FYI.

The following errata may be related to the ongoing discussion on EAP
pre-authentication:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5247

Yoshihiro Ohba

_______________________________________________
HOKEY mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:04:39 +0700

> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5247

Could be, but I don't see how.  Could you be a bit less cryptic?

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:22:56 -0500

> Could be, but I don't see how.  Could you be a bit less cryptic?

I thought this errata is related to whether peer-SA-AAA-CA signaling
should be categorized as EAP pre-authentication or proactive key
distribution.

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:18:25 +0700

> should be categorized as EAP pre-authentication or proactive key

Since the Erratum is classified as "Editorial" but fairly obviously modifies
the technical content of RFC 5247, as a member of the RFC Editorial Board
I'll ask the RFC Editor to remove it immediately.  Thanks for bringing this
to my attention!

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:34:00 +0700

Hi, Bob.  The Erratum referenced below was brought to my attention recently;
unfortunately, the Erratum is marked as "Editorial" but the new text
specifies the path that EAP traffic takes through the network, fairly
clearly modifying the technical content of RFC 5247:  

OLD: 
EAP pre-authentication
      In EAP pre-authentication, an EAP peer pre-establishes EAP keying
      material with an authenticator prior to arrival.  

NEW:
EAP pre-authentication
      In EAP pre-authentication, an EAP peer pre-establishes EAP 
      keying material with an authenticator through which the peer has
      routed the EAP authentication prior to arrival.

By the purest of coincidence, the new text also serves to provide previously
lacking technical justification for the position of the reporter in a debate
currently taking place in the hokey WG of the IETF, which I Co-Chair.
Insofar as the Erratum in question was (mistakenly, no doubt) classified as
editorial but is actually technical, I would ask that it be rejected.  Thank
you.