Last Call Review of draft-ietf-emu-eap-session-id-03
review-ietf-emu-eap-session-id-03-opsdir-lc-dodge-2020-05-24-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-emu-eap-session-id |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2020-05-27 | |
| Requested | 2020-05-13 | |
| Authors | Alan DeKok | |
| I-D last updated | 2020-05-24 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -03
by Mališa Vučinić
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Peter E. Yee (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Menachem Dodge (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Menachem Dodge |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-emu-eap-session-id by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/c5GnJer3QT1lLqeaMfVe72qtZ2I | |
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 07) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2020-05-24 |
review-ietf-emu-eap-session-id-03-opsdir-lc-dodge-2020-05-24-00
The document is well written and clearly expressed. I have a couple of nits: 1. The paragraphing could be made clearer in my opinion. "Section 2.3 Rationale" is the Rationale for sections 2.1 and 2.2 so I would put this in the section header, "Section 2.3 Rationale for EAP-AKA and EAP-SIM updates". it may be worth putting Section 2.4 as a separate numbering like 3. "Session-Id for PEAP" to keep it separate from 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. 2. Is "Rationale" needed for the section 2.4 "Session-Id for PEAP"? I suppose that as it is missing altogether the "rationale" is implied but it may be worth adding a sentence to keep consistency in the document.