Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Ready with Issues
I reviewed this document as part of the IoT Directorate's effort to
IoT-related IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors.
Document authors, document edit
On Mar 24, 2020, at 4:00 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
wrote:
> Having seen this statement from Michael I have reviewed the document. Two
> generic observations about the draft:
>
> 1) Many statements are made about deployments and no references are provided.
> To improve quality of the write-up I wou
> On 24 Mar 2020, at 10:30, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> Hi Eliot,
>
> I consider the enterprise and the university case as a roaming model. From an
> EAP method point of view there is IMHO little difference between the roaming
> and the non-roaming case: the EAP exchange always runs betwe
Hi Eliot,
I consider the enterprise and the university case as a roaming model. From an
EAP method point of view there is IMHO little difference between the roaming
and the non-roaming case: the EAP exchange always runs between the EAP peer on
the device and the EAP server.
The IoT case is dif
Hi Hannes
> On 24 Mar 2020, at 10:08, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> Hi Eliot
>
> You bring up a good point, namely the deployment environment. Are we are
> talking about an IoT, an enterprise deployment environment or something else?
> Clearly there will be differences. Reading through the te
Hi Eliot
You bring up a good point, namely the deployment environment. Are we are
talking about an IoT, an enterprise deployment environment or something else?
Clearly there will be differences. Reading through the text my impression was
that this is about an enterprise (or university) deployme
Good morning Hannes
>
>
>> Also,
>> from deployment experience, EAP peers typically have longer
>> certificate chains than servers.
>
> I would like a reference to be included here. Theoretically, it makes no
> sense to
> have a certificate chain for an EAP peer to have a longer certificate c
Hi Michael, Hi draft authors,
> I was surprised to get to the end of the document without any suggestions
> about sending certificates by reference rather than value.
Having seen this statement from Michael I have reviewed the document. Two
generic observations about the draft:
1) Many stateme
