Skip to main content

The Extensible Authentication Protocol-Internet Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (EAP-IKEv2) Method
RFC 5106

Yes

(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Tim Polk)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-10-04)
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

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-10-03)
  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

No Objection ()