Hi Joe, Thanks for the clarifications and for the changes at: https://github.com/emu-wg/charter/pull/5/files. This look good to me.
Sent you right now a review with some nitty things. Cheers, Med De : Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> Envoyé : mercredi 4 juin 2025 04:46 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]> Cc : The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Objet : Re: Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on charter-ietf-emu-07-00: (with COMMENT) On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 11:53 AM Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-emu-07-00: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-emu/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Please find some minor comments: # (nit) The charter uses different styles to cite RFCs: "The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC 3748]" vs "TLS in RFC 8446" "RFC 7258 notes" vs "the EDHOC mechanism (RFC 9528)", etc. Likewise, the charter uses different styles for expanding: "Out-of-band (OOB)" vs. "EDHOC (Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE)". Please use a consistent style. Yes this should be made consistent. # Some RFC citations will be stale soon (e.g., RFC 8446). Maybe better to soften the use of the RFC labels. yea I'm not sure what the best practice is here. References help people find the references to the work, but they will become stale. # Maybe get rid of some examples inherited from the OLD charter Yes I think we should remove some of the old items. Here is a PR that removes things that have left the working group. https://github.com/emu-wg/charter/pull/5/files CURRENT: As an example, IETF has standardized a new and improved version.. # Other than 3GPP and VPN that are already from the OLD charter ("authentication framework used, for instance, in VPN and mobile network"), what are the new cases referred to in this part: CURRENT: some new use cases for EAP have been identified # Keep sync with 3GPP updates and PFS Just out of curiosity, is "extension to EAP-AKA' for providing PFS" work coming (requested) from the 3GPP? I believe it is part of a 3GPP work item. Perhaps someone from the working group can shed more light. I believe the work may have started in the IETF and then became part of the 3GPP work. BTW, the main text promises working on an "extension to EAP-AKA' for providing PFS", but this is not listed in the summary & milestones. This work has already been submitted to the IESG. # Stale References draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-13 is already published as RFC8628 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
