Dear authors, Can you please follow up on that one.
Regards, Benoit
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-01-31 IETF LC End Date: 2014-02-04 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC. I have a small number of minor comments that may be worth considering prior to publication. Major issues: None Minor issues: -- 2.1, last paragraph: Does the last sentence imply Allowed-Called-Station-Id actually should (or SHOULD) not be used in non-wireless scenarios? (I note that the Network-Id-Name section talks about how 802.1X NID-Names should not be included in Called-Station-Id, but rather put in Network-Id-Name. Does that apply here as well? -- 2.2, last paragraph: "Since a NAS will typically only include a EAP-Key-Name Attribute in an Access-Request in situations where the Attribute is required to provision service, if an EAP-Key-Name Attribute is included in an Access-Request but is not present in the Access-Accept, the NAS SHOULD treat the Access-Accept as though it were an Access-Reject. " Is there a backwards compatibility issue? What if a NAS sends the field to a server that doesn't implement this draft? Is there an assumption that a NAS that supports this draft will only work with a server that also supports it? Or more to the point, is the "...typically only include...where required..." strong enough to require a normative SHOULD? Seems like this would discourage the inclusion of EAP-Key-Name in the non-typical case of it _not_ being required. Is that the intent? Nits/editorial comments: -- section 2.8: It might be worth expanding "EAPoL" .
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
