• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: nea

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2012-12-13 00:25 (System)

RFC published

2012-10-22 09:39 Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-10-19 13:20 (System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC

2012-10-19 13:16 Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed

2012-10-19 13:16 Cindy Morgan

IESG has approved the document

2012-10-19 13:15 Cindy Morgan

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-10-19 13:15 Cindy Morgan

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-10-19 13:15 Cindy Morgan

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-10-19 10:49 Stephen Hanna

New revision available

2012-09-27 10:00 Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation

2012-09-27 07:45 Gonzalo Camarillo

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo

2012-09-26 19:45 Wesley Eddy

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy

2012-09-26 18:24 Ralph Droms

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms

2012-09-26 14:21 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot comment]
The third sentence of the Introduction is an apparent non sequitur. It
would be nice if some context was given to the statement.

---

Section 5

1. Protocols should make use of cryptographic binding, however
binding identities of the tunnel endpoints in the EMA may be
useful.

This is hard to parse. Is there an "also" missing from the second
clause?

2012-09-26 14:21 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel

2012-09-26 03:50 Stephen Farrell

State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead

2012-09-26 00:22 (System)

State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call

2012-09-25 13:46 Ron Bonica

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica

2012-09-25 10:01 Sean Turner

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner

2012-09-25 06:11 Martin Stiemerling

[Ballot comment]
I have one point requiring clarification:

Section 2, paragraph 1:

> The NEA Asokan Attack is a variation on an attack described in a
> 2002 paper written by Asokan, Niemi, and Nyberg [1]. Figure 1
> depicts one version of the original Asokan attack. This attack
> involves tricking an authorized user into authenticating to a decoy
> AAA server, which forwards the authentication protocol from one
> tunnel to another, tricking a AAA server into believing these
> messages came from the attacker and granting access to him.

Shouldn't it read that the 'believe that messages came from the user,
but granting access to the attacker'?

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.