Document: draft-harkins-emu-eap-pwd-06.txt Reviewer: Suresh Review Date: 9/18/2009 IETF-LC Date: 9/24/2009 For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC but I have a few comments Substantial =========== Section 2.6.4.1 * It is possible that I missed something but I did not see the function "F" defined in this document. e.g. -> compute ks = F(KS) Minor ===== * IANA considerations : Random function The "Specification required" policy already implies use of a designated expert and hence the "and Expert Review" clause is not needed. * The word hunt-and-peck used in the document is not very well defined. I have seen this being used to describe inexperienced typists but I could not see how to apply the analogy to this EAP method. =============================================================================== Document: draft-harkins-emu-eap-pwd-04.txt REviewer: Suresh Krishnan REview Date: 8/14/2009 IETF LC Date: 8/10/2009 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC but I have a few comments Substantial =========== Section 2.6.4.1 * It is possible that I missed something but I did not see the function "F" defined in this document. e.g. -> compute ks = F(KS) Minor ===== * IANA considerations : Random function The "Specification required" policy already implies use of a designated expert and hence the "and Expert Review" clause is not needed. * The word hunt-and-peck used in the document is not very well defined. I have seen this being used to describe inexperienced typists but I could not see how to apply the analogy to this EAP method. Process ======= * The draft mentions that it is on the Standards track, but the tracker says it is Informational. Please update the draft to reflect the proposed status.