Last Call Review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10
review-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10-genart-lc-campbell-2014-01-31-00

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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2014-01-31
IETF LC End Date: 2014-02-04

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC. I
have a small number of minor comments that may be worth considering prior to
publication.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

-- 2.1, last paragraph:

Does the last sentence imply Allowed-Called-Station-Id actually should (or
SHOULD) not be used in non-wireless scenarios? (I note that the Network-Id-Name
section talks about how 802.1X NID-Names should not be included in
Called-Station-Id, but rather put in Network-Id-Name. Does that apply here as
well?

-- 2.2, last paragraph: "Since a NAS will typically only include a EAP-Key-Name
Attribute in an Access-Request in situations where the Attribute is required to
provision service, if an EAP-Key-Name Attribute is included in an
Access-Request but is not present in the Access-Accept, the NAS SHOULD treat
the Access-Accept as though it were an Access-Reject. "

Is there a backwards compatibility issue? What if a NAS sends the field to a
server that doesn't implement this draft? Is there an assumption that a NAS
that supports this draft will only work with a server that also supports it?

Or more to the point, is the "...typically only include...where required..."
strong enough to require a normative SHOULD? Seems like this would discourage
the inclusion of EAP-Key-Name in the non-typical case of it _not_ being
required. Is that the intent?

Nits/editorial comments:

-- section 2.8:

It might be worth expanding "EAPoL"