On 04/09/2013 01:01 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I support publication.
> Section 4:
>
> One minor error:
>
> fully mitigate the risk of NAS impersonation when these mechanisms
> are used, it is RECOMMENDED that mutual channel bindings be used to
> bind the authentications together as described in
> [I-D.ietf-emu-crypto-bind]. When doing channel binding it is
> REQUIRED that the authenticator is not able to modify the channel
> binding data passed between the peer to the authenticator as
> part of
> the authentication process.
>
>
> Don't you mean cryptographic binding there?
>
> I also believe that a reference to RFC 6919 section 1 MAY WISH TO be
> considered for section 1.1. There are a lot of MUSTs is section 2. I
> don't support any text changes to section 2.
> _______________________________________________
> abfab mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
These sound like minor last-call comments that Joe can incorporate
before IETF LC.
Cheers Leif
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
