Skip to main content

Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP)
RFC 6942

Yes

(Benoît Claise)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -16)

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -16)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -16)

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -16)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-01-23 for -16)
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

No Objection (2013-01-24 for -16)
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

No Objection (for -16)

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -16)

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -16)

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-01-23 for -16)
  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

No Objection (2013-01-24 for -16)
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

No Objection (2013-03-11)
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

No Objection (for -16)

                            

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -16)