Last Call Review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-02-04
Requested 2014-01-23
Authors Bernard Aboba, Jouni Malinen, Paul Congdon, Joseph Salowey, Mark Jones
Draft last updated 2014-01-31
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Ben Campbell (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Ben Campbell (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Paul Hoffman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ben Campbell 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10-genart-lc-campbell-2014-01-31
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 12)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2014-01-31


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2014-01-31
IETF LC End Date: 2014-02-04

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC. I have a small number of minor comments that may be worth considering prior to publication.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: 

-- 2.1, last paragraph:

Does the last sentence imply Allowed-Called-Station-Id actually should (or SHOULD) not be used in non-wireless scenarios? (I note that the Network-Id-Name section talks about how 802.1X NID-Names should not be included in Called-Station-Id, but rather put in Network-Id-Name. Does that apply here as well?

-- 2.2, last paragraph: "Since a NAS will typically only include a EAP-Key-Name Attribute in an Access-Request in situations where the Attribute is required to provision service, if an EAP-Key-Name Attribute is included in an Access-Request but is not present in the Access-Accept, the NAS SHOULD treat the Access-Accept as though it were an Access-Reject. "

Is there a backwards compatibility issue? What if a NAS sends the field to a server that doesn't implement this draft? Is there an assumption that a NAS that supports this draft will only work with a server that also supports it? 

Or more to the point, is the "...typically only include...where required..." strong enough to require a normative SHOULD? Seems like this would discourage the inclusion of EAP-Key-Name in the non-typical case of it _not_ being required. Is that the intent?

Nits/editorial comments:

-- section 2.8:

It might be worth expanding "EAPoL"