The Extensible Authentication Protocol-Internet Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (EAP-IKEv2) Method
RFC 5106
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
Were this going standards track, I'd probably abstain due to the complexity of this protocol unless there was strong evidence of interoperability in practice. I would be concerned about the real world security of such a complex protocol -- every line of code is an opportunity for a security vulnerability and every option makes this more difficult to deploy and use. I'd also be concerned about the sub-negotiation problem (first negotiate EAP-IKEv2, then negotiate EAP-IKEv2 options, but what if another EAP mechanism was a better fit for the client once the available EAP-IKEv2 options were seen?). The abstract shouldn't mention the expert review -- that's not relevant to a summary of the salient content of the document. That mention would be better in the introduction or IANA Considerations section.
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
Based on the Gen-ART Review by Robert Sparks: The 2119 language isn't boilerplate. Reference 6 (to RFC 3629) is not used. Section 8.8 first sentence should probably start "The Certificate Request payload". The IANA considerations should suggest a registry name. The last full paragraph on page 32: s/outline in [9]/outlined in [9]/ Also, if the polices are stated in this document, pointing to [9] seems a little redundant; however, if there's stuff in [9] that is missing here, then it is probably not an informative reference.
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection