RE: [eap] REVISED Last Call: 'Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)' to Proposed Standard

["Puthenkulam, Jose P" <jose.p.puthenkulam@intel.com>]

In section 7.2 [c]

Replace "acknowledged result indications" with "protected result
indications". It makes more sense to have the EAP method indicate its
result in a protected manner than making sure the result is
acknowledged.

Also for section 7.4 Man-in-the-middle attacks would it not be
appropriate to add an informative reference to the EAP Binding Draft and
the Nokia Mitm paper.

best regards,
jose




> -----Original Message-----
> From: eap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:eap-admin@frascone.com] 
> On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:57 AM
> Cc: eap@frascone.com
> Subject: [eap] REVISED Last Call: 'Extensible Authentication 
> Protocol (EAP)' to Proposed Standard
> 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Extensible 
> Authentication Protocol 
> WG to consider the following document:
> 
> - 'Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)'
>    <draft-ietf-eap-rfc2284bis-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
> iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2003-11-26.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eap-rfc2284bis-06.txt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eap mailing list
> eap@frascone.com
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
>