Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
Thanks for all the updates! It looks like there's one "fast re-authentication" that is split across a line (in Section 2.3) and thus escaped the cleanup pass.
I suspect it would be helpful to expand EAP, EAP-SIM, EAP-AKA, PEAP, and FILS on first use. Section 2 feels like it's phrased as an erratum. I suggest removing the explicit citation of the existing document and just include the new text.
Thank you for this document — this is far outside my expertise, so I’m balloting NoObjection, because, well, I have no objection :-) Do please see the OpsDir comments at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-emu-eap-session-id-03-opsdir-lc-dodge-2020-05-24/ , for some useful nits...
— Section 2 — This section updates [RFC5247] ... It further defines Session-ID derivation for PEAP. This section does not address PEAP; that’s done in Section 3. I suggest removing that last sentence. — Section 3 — [RFC5247] did not define Session-Id definition for Microsoft's Protected EAP (PEAP). For consistency with EAP-TLS the definition given in [RFC5216] Section 2.3, we define it as: Both sentences here need some fixing: NEW [RFC5247] did not define Session-Id for Microsoft's Protected EAP (PEAP). For consistency with the EAP-TLS definition given in [RFC5216] Section 2.3, we define it as: END
Alan, Thank you for the work put into this document. The short document is easy to read and I am trusting the security AD for the security aspects. Just wondering why there is no -03 ;-) and suggest to update errata 5011 (that is still open) Regards -éric
Like Warren, this document a long way outside of my area of expertise. However, having said that, I found the document easy to read and follow, and believe that this represents useful work, so thank you. Regards, Rob