Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-08: 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.)


Please refer to 
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-08
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Peter Yee for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the
WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Abstract

Like Gorry, expanding the less-known DPP would be welcome.

As this I-D is related to EAP, should the terms "EAP peer" and "EAP server" be
used ?

"Boostrap" or "on-boarding" for the title ? The latter is clearer IMHO.

### Section 1

`This poses a catch-22` is hard to understand for non-English speakers. Also
later in the text.

What about non-wired networks that are not Wi-Fi ? E.g., IEEE 802.15.4

### Section 1.2

Is the usefulness of this document limited to EC only ? I.e., no plain RSA or
PQC hybrid systems ?

Who is the "we" in `which we refer to as`? The authors ? The WG ? The IETF ?
Please refrain from using "we".

I find the use of "network" in this section rather vague... possibly because
could be a layer-2 switch or a BRAS or ... and further text uses "server"
(e.g., in section 2), this is somehow confusing. Suggest using only one term
and defining it in the terminology section.

### Section 2

Should there be an informative reference to `"entity authentication"`?

### Section 4

`Authenticator on an 802.1X-protected port` another term for "network" (see my
related comment about section 1.2); suggest using the terminology section to
establish that these terms are related or even identical.

## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate
SVG graphics. It is worth a try especially if the I-D uses the Kramdown file
format ;-)

### Section 7

s/TLS sever on-boarding/TLS server on-boarding/ ? Suggest running a spell
checker on the text.



_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to