Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Session-Id Derivation for EAP Subscriber Identity Module (EAP-SIM), EAP Authentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA), and Protected EAP (PEAP)
RFC 8940

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Roman Danyliw Yes

(Deborah Brungard) No Objection

Martin Duke No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2020-07-27 for -05)
Thanks for all the updates!
It looks like there's one "fast re-authentication" that is split across        
a line (in Section 2.3) and thus escaped the cleanup pass.

Erik Kline No Objection

Murray Kucherawy No Objection

Comment (2020-05-29 for -04)
I suspect it would be helpful to expand EAP, EAP-SIM, EAP-AKA, PEAP, and FILS on first use.

Section 2 feels like it's phrased as an erratum.  I suggest removing the explicit citation of the existing document and just include the new text.

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2020-06-01 for -04)
Thank you for this document — this is far outside my expertise, so I’m balloting NoObjection, because, well,  I have no objection :-)

Do please see the OpsDir comments at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-emu-eap-session-id-03-opsdir-lc-dodge-2020-05-24/ , for some useful nits...

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Comment (2020-06-02 for -04)
— Section 2 —

   This section updates [RFC5247] ...
   It further
   defines Session-ID derivation for PEAP.

This section does not address PEAP; that’s done in Section 3.  I suggest removing that last sentence.

— Section 3 —

   [RFC5247] did not define Session-Id definition for Microsoft's
   Protected EAP (PEAP).  For consistency with EAP-TLS the definition
   given in [RFC5216] Section 2.3, we define it as:

Both sentences here need some fixing:

NEW
   [RFC5247] did not define Session-Id for Microsoft's
   Protected EAP (PEAP).  For consistency with the EAP-TLS definition
   given in [RFC5216] Section 2.3, we define it as:
END

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2020-06-08 for -04)
Alan,

Thank you for the work put into this document. The short document is easy to read and I am trusting the security AD for the security aspects.

Just wondering why there is no -03 ;-) and suggest to update errata 5011 (that is still open)

Regards

-éric

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection

Robert Wilton No Objection

Comment (2020-06-08 for -04)
Like Warren, this document a long way outside of my area of expertise.

However, having said that, I found the document easy to read and follow, and believe that this represents useful work, so thank you.

Regards,
Rob