Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP)
RFC 6942
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
I was surprised by the list of references in the security considerations without any further discussion of any potential new threads that could arise of DIME ERP. However, I am not a DIAMETER and EAP experts to judge whether the current security considerations are sufficient and a just short cut.
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks to the AD and shepherd for following up on my questions. I will leave it in their hands.
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
The term 'domain' was being very loosely used. Please do not assume that readers knew all the various RFCs which this document builds.
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
1) s8.3.1: Should the values for rRK and rMSK be 1 and 2 and not 2 and 3 based on the registry:
Key-Type AVP Values (code 582)
Registration Procedures
Specification Required
Reference
[RFC6734]
AVP Values Attribute Name Reference
0 DSRK [RFC6734]
1 rRK [RFC6734]
2 rMSK [RFC6734]
3 IKEv2 SK [RFC6738]
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my discuss point.
One quick check, the diff seems to include a value change for
the key type.
-16:
The value of the Key-Type AVP MUST be set to 2 for rRK or 3 for rMSK.
-17:
The value of the Key-Type AVP MUST be set to 1 for rRK or 2 for rMSK.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection