An Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Extension to Support EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP)
RFC 6867

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-12-13 for -09)
No email
send info
I support Ralph's DISCUSS point.

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-12-09 for -09)
No email
send info
Not my area of expertise, so I'm going to simply not object on the document itself. However, please take a look at the below and fix.

There are 6 occurrences of MUST per 2119. 5 of them seem obviously wrong:

Section 3:

   The IDi payload MUST have ID Type ID_RFC822_ADDR and the data field
   MUST contain the same value as the KeyName-NAI TLV in the
   EAP_Initiate/Re-auth message.
   
Section 4:

   o  Protocol ID (1 octet) MUST be zero, as this message is related to
      an IKE SA.
   o  SPI Size (1 octet) MUST be zero, in conformance with section 3.10
      of RFC 5996.
   o  ERX Notify Message Type (2 octets) - MUST be xxxxx, the value
      assigned for ERX.  TBA by IANA.

Ask yourself in each case: What would happen if an implementation chose not to do what you say is something that they MUST do? If the answer is, "They wouldn't be implementing the protocol", then the MUST is not being used correctly; you should instead use "will". If the answer is, "They would be implementing the protocol if they did something different, but they fail to interoperate", then the MUST would be correct. In each of the 5 cases above, I cannot figure out how the MUST is justified.

The only other MUST is in section 3.1:

   Section 3.16 of RFC 5996 enumerates the EAP codes in EAP messages
   which are carried in EAP payloads.  The enumeration goes only to 4.
   It is not clear whether that list is supposed to be exhaustive or
   not.

   To clarify, an implementation conforming to this specification MUST
   accept and transmit EAP messages with at least the codes for Initiate
   and Finish (5 and 6) from RFC 6696, in addition to the four codes
   enumerated in RFC 5996.

Here, the MUST would be appropriate if you are changing 5996, but if so, you have worded this poorly: Change "an implementation conforming to this specification" to "an implementation of IKEv2". You are saying that *any* IKEv2 EAP implementation MUST handle all 6. If you are not saying that, then the MUST is wrong and should be changed to "will".

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-12-20)
No email
send info
I see that the document no longer updates RFC 5996,
so I've cleared...

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info