Last Call Review of draft-ietf-emu-chbind-
review-ietf-emu-chbind-genart-lc-dupont-2012-04-11-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-emu-chbind |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 16) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2012-04-19 | |
Requested | 2012-03-29 | |
Authors | Sam Hartman , T. Char Clancy , Katrin Hoeper | |
I-D last updated | 2012-04-11 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -??
by Francis Dupont
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Francis Dupont Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Steve Hanna |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Francis Dupont |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-emu-chbind by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Completed | 2012-04-11 |
review-ietf-emu-chbind-genart-lc-dupont-2012-04-11-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-emu-chbind-14.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 20120407 IETF LC End Date: 20120412 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - Abstract page 1: NAS -> Network Access Server (BTW NAS has two meanings so this is really needed) - ToC page 3 and many other places: Radius -> RADIUS - Toc page 3 and 12 page 27: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments - Introduction page 5 (twice) and many other places: e.g. -> e.g., - Introduction page 5: advertized -> advertised - 3 page 6: I don't understand (i.e., wording problem): ... the EAP server can be far removed from the authenticator. ^^^^^^^ - 3 page 6: Lads -> LANs - 3 page 7 and other places: adversarial -> adversarious??? (BTW if my dictionary can't find it I have no problem to understand it) - 4 page 8: I really appreciated this section! - 4.1 page 9: a universal or an universal? - 4.3 page 12: I don't know the expression "pockets of trust"? - 5.2 page 15 (3 times) and at other places: i.e. -> i.e., - 5.3 page 16: IMHO the text should explain before the Figure 2 than the format can includes multiple ( Length, NSID, NS-Specific... ) triples (in fact one per attribute type) - 5.3 page 17: of 1 . -> of 1. (or of "1". if 1. is ambiguous) - 7.2 page 21: missing space in the figure? 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Value +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Value (cont) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ^ | - 9.1 page 23: interesting conclusion (:-)! - 11.1 page 26: what is the size (or range) of this new parameter? IMHO the best should be to add a 10-XXX Unassigned line at the end (as it is done for eap-numbers). Note I believe IANA will have the same request... - 12 page 27: Sam hartman -> Sam Hartman - A.5 page 30: make the peer believe -> to believe? - A.5 page 30: from the on the -> from the one the? Thanks Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr