State Machines for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Peer and Authenticator
draft-ietf-eap-statemachine-06

[Note]: 'Went back to  the WG to address late issues raised while in RFC Editor queue that resulted in substantive changes.  Back on IESG agenda to be checked before being sent to the RFC Editor (again).' added by Amy Vezza

[Note]: 'Went back to  the WG to address late issues raised while in RFC Editor queue that resulted in substantive changes.  Back on IESG agenda to be checked before being sent to the RFC Editor (again).' added by Margaret Wasserman

[Note]: 'Has been through the IESG once and was then sent to IETF Last Call at WG chairs'' request.? No comments were received during IETF Last Call, so I hope that the IESG will re-approve this document for publication. Participant in PROTO Team pilot:
Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-00.txt' added by Amy Vezza

[Note]: 'Has been through the IESG once and was then sent to IETF Last Call at WG chairs'' request.  No comments were received during IETF Last Call, so I hope that the IESG will re-approve this document for publication. Participant in PROTO Team pilot:
Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-00.txt' added by Margaret Wasserman

[Note]: 'Has been through the IESG once and was then sent to IETF Last Call at WG chairs'' request.  No comments were received during IETF Last Call, so I hope that the IESG will re-approve this document for publication.

Participant in PROTO Team pilot:
Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-00.txt' added by Margaret Wasserman

[Note]: 'Has been through the IESG once, but is now being sent to IETF Last Call at WG chairs'' request.
Participant in PROTO Team pilot:
Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-00.txt' added by Margaret Wasserman

[Note]: 'Has been through the IESG once, but is now being sent to IETF Last Call at WG chairs'' request.

Participant in PROTO Team pilot:
Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-00.txt' added by Margaret Wasserman

[Ballot comment]
I think that the security considerations should say that an accurate state
  machine can help reduce implementation errors.  While the EAP document
  remains the normative protocol description, this state machine ought to
  help in this regard.

[Ballot comment]
In 4.2, the draft uses the following example:

  (for instance, it has invalid MIC, this case should never occur, and the method
  treats MIC failures as non-fatal)

and later, a related example in 5.2:

  (e.g. it has invalid MIC, and this case should never occur)

MIC is not defined in this draft.  I also found this wording a bit hard to follow,
especially in the first case.  "This would arise when:  1) .. 2)...  3)" might be
a little bit better, but it is not really easy to make work in a parenthetical
example.  If the authors don't see better language, this would be okay,
but they might think about it to see if something clearly strikes them.

[Ballot comment]
This document contains a fairly detailed API description, including method and variable names, in addition to the WG-chartered state machine.  It thus seems to contain a lot of detail that could be considered implementation-specific, though the abstract does state that "Implementations may achieve the same results using different methods".