Hello! I conducted an AD review of draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis-06 and this document is in good shape. Thanks for all of the work on it. I have minor questions and editorial nits which can be addressed with the IETF Last Call feedback.
Minor: -- Can you revisit the history -- why was RFC4187 informational? I'm guessing this draft is informational because it updates RFC4187, right? -- Section 7.1. Per "The use of pseudonyms in this situation is at best limited" - unclear to me what this means? Is this say that pseudonyms is not recommended because the re-use is creates a tracking opportunity (per the next sentence)? -- Section 7.1. Per "Outside 5G, there is a full choice to use ...", what is a "full choice"? Editorial Nits: -- Section 1. s/EAP-AKA' is also an algorithm update for the used hash functions./EAP-AKA' also updates the algorithm used in the hash functions./ -- Section 1. s/The update ensures/This update ensures/ -- Section 1. Typo. s/how how/how/ -- Section 3.5. Consider giving the table an explicit number (e.g., Table 1) and s/The attribute table is shown below/The attribute table is shown in Table 1./ -- Section 5.2. s/However, to ensure privacy/However, to enhance privacy/ -- there is no "absolute privacy". -- Section 5.2. s/for at attacker/for an attacker/ -- Section 7.3. s/an backwards/a backwards/ Regards, Roman _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
