Hiya, Klaas sent on the publication request and my AD review is below.
I don't see any show-stoppers here but would like if the chairs/shepherd/authors/wg would comment before I request IETF LC. Doesn't need loads of discussion but I'd like just to know there's nothing here that the wg didn't consider already. Thanks, S. - Should this update 3748? Current IESG thinking (i.e. want something else and someone will badger you:-) is that if a reader of 3748 really ought also read this, then this should update 3748; if its ok for a reader of 3748 to not have to read this, then this shouldn't update 3748. I'd guess that this should update 3847 but am ok if you say not. I'd like to just double check that before IETF LC since someone might want a 2nd LC otherwise. (Safest is to include it during IETF LC and the updates thing could always be dropped later.) - Mentioning the WG name in the abstract is usually wrong since the WG will go away. Maybe say what abfab does instead, e.g. like the charter does and say "...usage of the EAP protocol as part of a federated identity mechanism for use by Internet protocols not based on HTML/HTTP, such as for instance IMAP, XMPP, SSH and NFS." (Same for later mentions of the wg.) - section 2: 2nd last para, last sentence: what does that mean? something is funny there - section 2: last para, 1st sentence: what does "between" mean there? - s2, last para: "an channel binding attributes" - do you mean one or more? (and fix grammar please) - s3, 2nd last para: s/part/party/ - s4, RECOMMENDS use of [I-D.ietf-emu-crypto-bind], doesn't that make it a normative reference? _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
