Identity Selection Hints for the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)
RFC 4284

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.

(Margaret Cullen) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2005-05-23 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Review comments from Spencer Dawkins: occurred to me to wonder why this draft wouldn't be published as an Experimental RFC, since it changes the bits on the wire in a Proposed Standard, it's useful but has some scaling problems,...

...a couple of editorial comments.

In the Abstract - "EAP peer" may not be common usage. Is there any
clarifying text that could be added to the first sentence?

In the "Security considerations" section, first paragraph, it would be
nice to explain a little more about what the peer does when it treats
the NAIRealms attribute as a hint.

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-05-26)
No email
send info
  citation in abstract (fomrally not allowed by RFC-Ed)

  possibly The reference to RFC 2234 could be updated to point to
  draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis instead.  It's in the RFC Editor queue.