Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA) Relay Element
RFC 6345

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-22)
No email
send info
Section 1

   For example, in ZigBee IP

Needs a reference.

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-18)
No email
send info
(1) Why not specify how the PaC finds the PRE here?  Seems odd.

(2) This entire paragraph is very unclear. "The Session Identifier
and Sequence Number of a PRY message are set to zero.  A PRY
message is never retransmitted by the PRE or the PAA.  The PRE and
PAA do not advance their incoming or outgoing sequence numbers for
request when transmitting or receiving a PRY message.  Note that
the PANA message carried in a Relayed-Message may be retransmitted
by the PaC or PAA, leading to transmission of another PRY carrying
the same Relayed-Message." For example, you need to state a
condition that causes the session id and sequence # to be set to
zero - it surely doesn't happen just once every blue moon :-) (Same
thing is restated later.)

(3) It would be stronger to say that multiple proxys are a MUST
NOT.

(4) 1st sentence of section 3; s/must/MUST/?

(5) "Because the PREs and PAAs are used within an organization,..."
That should be clearer up front.

(David Harrington) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-19)
No email
send info
Is the only reason for this protocol so that the PRE does not need to keep the context for every PaC request? I don't quite understand why the PAA has to be involved in this at all except to turn around the information for the PRE to find the PaC.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-21)
No email
send info
I support Stephen Farrell's DISCUSS.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2011-06-20)
No email
send info
I had an issue with the first paragraph in Section 3 until I saw the exchange between Stephen and Alper.  Long way of saying I support Stephen's discuss.