Major concerns: Section 3, 3rd para: It is unclear to me what "relevant resumption and/or EAP type" means. Please expand this discussion.
Minor concerns: Section 2 says: There remain some differences between EAP-TLS and other TLS-based EAP methods which necessitates this document. The main difference is that [RFC9190] uses the EAP-TLS Type (value 0x0D) in a number of calculations, whereas other method types will use their own Type value instead of the EAP-TLS Type value. This topic is discussed further below in Section 2. I assume this should be a forward pointer to Section 2.1. Section 2.1 uses || to indicate concatenation, but Section 2.2 uses |. Please pick one. Section 2.1 says: ... There does not appear to be compelling reasons to make the labels method-specific, when they can just include the logical Type in the key derivation. I think it would be more clear to say that the inclusion of the logical Type makes the result method-specific. Nit: The author on the title page should be "A. DeKok" Russ > On Jun 8, 2022, at 12:16 PM, Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote: > > This is the working group last call for draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types. You > can find the document here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types> > > Please respond to the list with comments by June 24, 2022. Responses that > indicate that you have read the draft and think it is ready to move forward > are also useful. > > Thanks, > > Joe & Mohit > > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
