Hi Francisco, Thank you for this update.
The changes in your working version [1] addresses all my comments. Appreciated. Cheers, Med [1] https://dangarciacarrillo.github.io/i-d-eap-edhoc/#go.draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc.html De : FRANCISCO LOPEZ GOMEZ <[email protected]> Envoyé : jeudi 4 juin 2026 11:10 À : The IESG <[email protected]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]> Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Objet : RE: Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc-10: (with COMMENT) Hi Mohamed, First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to review the draft and submit a PR on GitHub. We greatly appreciate it. The terms "Peer" and "Server" are now explained in Section 2. In addition, the text now consistently uses "set to 1" and "set to 0" to avoid ambiguity. With regard to values 5 to 7 in the L bits, they are intentionally left unused. Since an L value of 4 already allows encoding a Message Length field of 4 octets, supporting EAP messages of up to 2^32-1 octets, larger values were not considered necessary for EAP-EDHOC. The intention is therefore not to define additional Message Length field sizes, and values 5 to 7 are reserved. We have clarified this in the text. Finally, we reviewed your PR and it looks good. While doing so, we also performed another round of editorial review and fixed a few additional nits. Best regards, The EAP-EDHOC Authors. Francisco López Gómez Predoctoral Researcher Dept. Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [logo UMU]<https://www.um.es/> [logo euniwell]<https://www.euniwell.eu/> [logo hr]<https://www.um.es/web/hrs4r> [logo CMN]<https://www.campusmarenostrum.es/> ________________________________ De: Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Enviado: Miércoles, 03 de Junio de 2026 14:42 Para: The IESG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> CC: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Asunto: Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc-10: (with COMMENT) Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc-10: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SYAMhC41SJsgw7ruEIEEof2V1o6w1BsjzTk2dQ12OFzr_viuNKPkkFNsAoBnCwL5E94QwO6g7Q_6VM81bCCn$ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SYAMhC41SJsgw7ruEIEEof2V1o6w1BsjzTk2dQ12OFzr_viuNKPkkFNsAoBnCwL5E94QwO6g7Q_6VH2k5Jt5$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Dan, Rafael, Göran, John, and Francisco, Thank you for the effort put into this document. # I agree with Éric comments. # I think Peer/Server roles would be better if introduced in the terminology section. # Set ambiguity: clarify that this means set to 1 The text uses "set to 0", "set to 1", "set", etc. Some clarity can be done in the convention section by indicating how "set" should be interpreted. Alternatively, consider changes such as: OLD: The S flag bit SHALL be set in the EAP-EDHOC Start message sent by the EAP server to the peer. The S flag bit SHALL NOT be set in any other EAP-EDHOC messages. The M flag bit SHALL be set in all fragments except the last one. NEW: The S flag bit SHALL be set to 1 in the EAP-EDHOC Start message sent by the EAP server to the peer. The S flag bit SHALL NOT be set to 1 in any other EAP-EDHOC messages. The M flag bit SHALL be set to 1 in all fragments except the last one. OLD: The M bit (more fragments) is set on NEW: The M bit (more fragments) is set to 1 There are many such occurrences. # Future use CURRENT: Values from 5 to 7 are not used in this specification. Are these values reserved and available for future assignment? # You may find some nits that I flagged when reading the document [1]. Cheers, Med [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/dangarciacarrillo/i-d-eap-edhoc/pull/14__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SYAMhC41SJsgw7ruEIEEof2V1o6w1BsjzTk2dQ12OFzr_viuNKPkkFNsAoBnCwL5E94QwO6g7Q_6VAo01sbI$ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
