Subject: [Emu] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 22:48:03 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis-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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis/

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

The apostrophe in "EAP-AKA'" makes me think there’s a typo present every time I
see it.

I primarily reviewed the diff between this document and RFC 5448.  Nothing
stood out to me as needing particular discussion.  The thorough treatment on
security, privacy, and vulnerability is appreciated.

Abstract:
* "memo" should really be "document".  (This was beaten into me by a previous
AD, but I kind of agree with it.)

Section 5.1:
Nit:
* List item (1)(b) is missing a closing parenthesis.

Section 7.2:
Nit:
* "There has also been attacks …" -- s/has/have/

Section 7.3:
Nit:
* "Perfect Forwards Secrecy …" -- s/Forwards/Forward/

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 09:36:21 -0700

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-rfc5448bis/
[...]
> * "Perfect Forwards Secrecy …" -- s/Forwards/Forward/

FWIW, we had a recent thread on saag@ that seems to have converged on
preferring "Forward Secrecy" to "Perfect Forward Secrecy".

-Ben