Subject: [Emu] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 11:28:02 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I considered balloting Discuss, but I'm assuming that either I'm missing
something really obvious, or this will be an easy fix ...

In 3.1.  Version Negotiation

      If the TEAP server does not support the version number proposed by
      the TEAP peer, it MAY terminate the conversation with EAP-Failure
      or negotiate for another EAP type.  Otherwise the TEAP
      conversation continues.

I'm wondering if "MAY terminate the conversation" is what you mean when
the TEAP peer doesn't propose a version number that the TEAP server
supports.

I'm reading "otherwise the TEAP conversation continues" as saying that
the two alternatives given are the only choices when the TEAP server
doesn't support a proposed version number. Did I get that right? 

If you're expecting the TEAP server to do one of those two things,
something like "MUST terminate the conversation unless the TEAP server
negotiates for a different version number" might be clearer.

If there are more than two alternatives, it would be helpful to rephrase
this text so it's clear that theTEAP server isn't limited to those two
alternatives.

---

From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:10:06 +0000

Hi Spencer,

I think the text is a bit confusing.  I should say something like:

"It should say "it MUST either terminate the conversation with an EAP-Failure or negotiate a new EAP type.  If the server does support the version then the conversation continues using the version proposed by the peer. "

Does this help?

Thanks,

Joe

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 13:20:26 -0500

On 8/12/2013 1:10 PM, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
> "It should say "it MUST either terminate the conversation with an EAP-Failure or negotiate a new EAP type.  If the server does support the version then the conversation continues using the version proposed by the peer."
>
> Does this help?

Yes, it helps me quite a bit.

I note that Barry picked this question up, but has additional comments 
in his Discuss as well ...

Spencer