Encrypting the Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA) Attribute-Value Pairs
RFC 6786

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Ralph Droms) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2012-08-11 for -07)
No email
send info
You need to expand the acronyms on first use in the main body even if
you have already expanded them in the Abstract.

---

There are a number of SHALLs used to define behavior, and this is fine.
But where a message format is implied (for example "There SHALL be only
one Encr-Encap AVP in a PANA message") shouldn't you state the behavior
of a receiver when a non-conformant mesage is received? I suspect this
is as simple as a global catch-all refering processing of non-conformant
messages to RFC 5191.

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-09-07)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS point and making the IANA section much clearer in its requests.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-08-28 for -08)
No email
send info
[Updated] Version -08 resolves my DISCUSS and most of my non-blocking comments; thanks.

Authors: "The reference to MSK will be made to RFC 5191 as it is defined there (which in turn references RFC 3748)"

I don't think 5191 is the right reference: I don't think MSK is defined in 5191.  I think MSK is defined in 3748, and that 5191 contains MSK in its Terminology section but defers to 3748 for the definition.  That's precisely WHY the MSK entry in 5191 Section 2 refers to 3748, and if you want to know anything substantive about MSKs and how they're derived and work, you need to go to 3748.  I think it's best to point directly to 3748 here, rather than pointing to something that points to 3748.

It's not like references are expensive.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2012-08-15 for -07)
No email
send info
Barry and Brian's comments cover my concerns.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection