I'm satisfied with the responses. I think it would not hurt to add some of the explanations from the various emails into the draft, but that's by no means a show stopper.
Thanks! Ben. On Mar 26, 2014, at 7:17 AM, Bernard Aboba <[email protected]> wrote: > In 802.1X-2010, the EAP Key Name is actually needed to calculate the session > keys. So if it is unavailable, the NAS won't be able to decrypt traffic. > Therefore treating the Accept as a Reject is probably the only viable option. > >> On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:42 AM, "Jouni Korhonen" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I don't think there is anything that needs to be done for 2.2. It is >> a normal capability exchange type of mechanism. >> >> The text is IMHO clear: >> "in situations where the Attribute is required to provision service.." >> >> Then the lack of EAP-Key-Name means the service cannot be provisioned >> and the NAS can safely interpret that as an Access-Reject, when >> appropriate by the deployment. >> >> NAS doesn't include the attribute if it is not needed. And if it does, >> the current text allows still accepting the service regardless the >> lack of the attribute in the Access-Accept. >> >> >> - Jouni >> >> >>> On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Jari Arkko <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the review. I did not see a response or change regarding 2.1 or >>> 2.2. Does this need to be addressed? Authors? >>> >>> Jari >>> >>>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
