Skip to main content

Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP)
draft-ietf-dime-erp-17

Yes

(Benoît Claise)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.

Benoît Claise Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -16) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -16) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -16) Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -16) Unknown

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-01-23 for -16) Unknown
I was surprised by the list of references in the security considerations without any further discussion of any potential new threads that could arise of DIME ERP. However, I am not a DIAMETER and EAP experts to judge whether the current security considerations are sufficient and a just short cut.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2013-01-24 for -16) Unknown
Thanks to the AD and shepherd for following up on my questions. I will leave it in their hands.
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -16) Unknown

                            
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -16) Unknown

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -16) Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-01-23 for -16) Unknown
  The term 'domain' was being very loosely used.  Please do not assume
  that readers knew all the various RFCs which this document builds.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-01-24 for -16) Unknown
1) s8.3.1: Should the values for rRK and rMSK be 1 and 2 and not 2 and 3 based on the registry:

 Key-Type AVP Values (code 582)

   Registration Procedures

 Specification Required

   Reference
           [RFC6734]

    AVP Values  Attribute Name Reference
        0       DSRK           [RFC6734]
        1       rRK            [RFC6734]
        2       rMSK           [RFC6734]
        3       IKEv2 SK       [RFC6738]
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2013-03-11) Unknown
Thanks for addressing my discuss point.

One quick check, the diff seems to include a value change for
the key type. 

-16:		
       The value of the Key-Type AVP MUST be set to 2 for rRK or 3 for rMSK.

-17:
      The value of the Key-Type AVP MUST be set to 1 for rRK or 2 for rMSK.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -16) Unknown

                            
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -16) Unknown