eap Mailing List: Re: Issue: Section 5.5 Authorization Requirement

[Jari Arkko (jari.arkko]

Bernard,

> Looking over the document, I found a statement in Section 5.5 that
> was not present in -18 or in RFC 4962, which I think the WG needs
> to look at:
>
> "  Requirement: The Secure Association Protocol (phase 2) conversation
>    may utilize different identifiers from the EAP conversation (phase
>    1a), so that binding between the EAP and Secure Association Protocol
>    identities is REQUIRED."
>   

This is a statement from -18 which the WG sent forward:

   The Secure Association Protocol (phase
   2) conversation may utilize different identifiers from the EAP
   conversation (phase 1a), so that binding between the EAP and Secure
   Association Protocol identities is REQUIRED.


Which is exactly the same statement as in the current document, though
other text around it has moved around.

But I feel that we need to talk about what changes are appropriate at
this stage. The working group has worked on the document, and eventually
sent it forward to me, to Last Call and to IESG review. It is
appropriate to at this stage to respond to Last Call comments and IESG
review comments and attempt to resolve them. We're down to one. But it
is not appropriate to introduce new changes unless they truly are
critical. The document is not in the WG process anymore. In particular,
the WG has performed its review before and during WGLC; it seems clear
that for this particular issue the text shouldn't be a surprise to the WG.

I do want the WG to be involved in verifying that changes introduced due
to Last Call or IESG review are acceptable, however.

Folks, we've already at month ten in the Last Call & IESG processing,
and I really don't want this to continue much longer. If there's a
significant issue that makes the WG as a whole believe the world would
be a better place without this document, then lets pull the document
back and fix the issue. If not, we really need to move on.

My take is that there are certainly things that we could fix in the
document, but as a whole it passes my bar for PS by a good margin. It
makes no sense to tweak the document for years. The WG has sent it
forward, external and IESG reviewers have said what they have to say.
Lets ship it. If there is a need we can issue a bis, a correction, or
address some specific topic in future documents.

Jari