Dynamic Provisioning Using Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP-FAST)
RFC 5422

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Tim Polk) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2008-08-11 for -)
No email
send info
The document writeup says "This is not the product of any working group.  This is part of the
ongoing effort to document existing deployed EAP methods.  The purpose of this document is to publish existing behavior." That doesn't come out in the document at all. I wonder if this should be explicitly called out in the abstract and/or introduction?

(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2008-08-22 for -)
No email
send info
  Vijay Gurbani did a Gen-ART Review of -08 and -09 of this document.
  Please consider the two comments that he raised:

  1/ In S4.1.{2,3}, there is a term "PAC opaque".  I think you
     mean "PAC-Opaque", the opaque data that was defined in S4.1.1.

  2/ In S6.3, first paragraph: should the "should" on line 3 be
     normative?  More so especially since the "MAY" seven lines
     down is normative.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-08-27)
No email
send info
When defining a registry, it's helpful to give a title for the registry
as this is the only way readers of the document can find the IANA registry.

For example, "EAP-FAST PAC Attribute Types" registry, or
"PAC Attribute Type" sub-registry of the "EAP-FAST" registry.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Comment (2008-08-28 for -)
No email
send info
General area seems odd for this document. Tracker mistake?

(David Ward) No Objection