Hi Alan, The first two edits sound good to me, no notes. On the last one —
> On Feb 14, 2023, at 5:11 PM, Alan DeKok <al...@freeradius.org> wrote: ... > It's left over bits from multiple edits. Perhaps: > > There MAY be > additional protocol exchanges which could still cause failure, so we > cannot mandate sending success on successful authentication. The RFC 2119-style MAY seems a little out of place, it seems like it’s expressing an expectation rather than giving permission to an implementation that the inner protocol is allowed to do certain things (which seems beyond the scope of this spec to regulate?). Consider “may”, “might”, “could”, or similar? Thanks, —John _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
