RE: Comments on draft-zorn-radius-keywrap-04.txt

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Nelson, David <mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com> supposedly scribbled:

> I think that the -04 revision is a substantial improvement over some
> earlier versions.  I do have some comments to offer, however. 

Thank you for your close reading of the draft.  Most of the errors you note were artifacts of various revisions and have been repaired.

> 
> On page 6, the definition of the App Id, KEK ID, and Key ID fields
> contain the sentence "Further specification o the content of this
> field is outside the scope of this document." Other than a basic
> description of the field, which includes a length and an expansion of
> the field name abbreviation, no substantive information is provided. 
> I think that some additional guidance on the uses and content of
> these fields needs to be included in the document, if there is to be
> any hope of creating multiple, independent interoperable
> implementations using the document alone as a reference. 

As you know, there are basically 2 types of RFCs: protocol specifications & applicability statements.  This document is intended (at least from my POV, my co-authors can chime in here) to remain as strictly as possible within the realm of the former type since there are several other interested entities that may define explicit (and possibly conflicting) requirements upon the fields in question.  That said, have you any suggestions for text?

...       

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>