EAP Extensions for EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP)
RFC 5296

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.

(Tim Polk) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-04-04)
No email
send info
The document says:

  Our analysis indicates that some EAP implementations are not RFC 3748	
  compliant in that instead of silently dropping EAP packets with code	
  values higher than 4, they may consider it an error.

Please consider adding "This may lead into problems such as ERP cabable
and legacy EAP nodes being unable to complete basic EAP protocol and
therefore be unable to provide network access."

(Just to be very explicit about this.)

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2008-02-20 for -)
No email
send info
  Please remove phrases like "future versions of this draft."  If you
  really think this document is ready for publication as an RFC, then
  phrases like this should not appear.

(Chris Newman) No Objection

Comment (2008-02-21 for -)
No email
send info
The phrasing here:
 "HMAC-SHA256-128 is mandatory to support."
is a bit vague.  Interoperability might be improved by saying, for example:

HMAC-SHA256-128 is mandatory to implement and should be enabled in the
default configuration.

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection