1. Rating

     Technical quality
       5: Contents are completely correct. There are no errors.
       4: Contents are mostly correct. Some improvements suggested below.
       3: Some errors which can be easily corrected, as described below.
       2: Several errors but most are minor errors
       1: Several/major errors

       5

     Originality
       5: New results of publishable quality and good analysis of current state
       4: Contains some new ideas, but can be developed as described
          below; good analysis of current state
       3: No significantly new ideas, but good analysis of current state
       2: Good survey of current state; no new ideas
       1: Survey of current state has gaps

       3

     Editorial quality
       5: Clear, understandable and easy to read
       4: Mostly understandable, some improvements identified below
       3: Understandable with some effort, several improvements suggested
          below
       2: Hard to understand; several improvements suggested below
       1: Very hard to understand

       5

     Overall grade (overall, how do you rate this paper?)
       5: Excellent
       4: Very good
       3: Good
       2: Satisfactory
       1: Poor

       4

     Confidence (how confident are you about this review?)
       3: I have good or expert level knowledge of this topic
       2: I have some general knowledge of this subject
       1: This is a completely new subject to me; I made educated guesses

       1

2. Detailed comments

2a. Technical quality
Paper concentrates on two contributory key agreement protocols and how
to extend these to include key authentication. Paper discusses several
authentication methods including preshared secrets, passwords and
auxiliary channels. According to the paper, including authentication to
the key agreement protocols is challenging, afterall many
authentication methods have been broken. I am not very familiar this
research field, but I was wondering if there are other contributory
key agreement protocols or attempts to make existing key agreement
protocols authenticated? If there are, these could be added to the
paper, for instance you could add "Related Work" chapter to your paper.

2b. Originality
The paper does not present new ideas as far as I understand. It is
quite short overview of the subject, however it is well written and
could be continued. For instance, protocols could be discussed more
detailed. Are the authors made any analysis, measurements, experiments
of their protocols? You could include your own comments, thoughts and
analysis about the methods that the paper presents.

2c. Editorial quality
Language of the paper is very good and understandable. You can explain
terms and details very well. In the "Abstract" you state very clearly
the scope of the paper. You could include "Introduction" chapter that
could tell for instance: why the subject is relevant, what is the
current status of these protocols in practice, what are used and what
not, what are the real life problems of this field. Also, "Discussion"
chapter could be included to summarize how the presented protocols
manage to solve the problems.

Couple of minor issues:
2.1 You could explain more detailed what are the differences between
BD and DH and why BH is secure against passive attackers.

2.2 You mention several times protocol suite Cliques. You could
explain briefly what is the Cliques.

2.4 Is Dutta & Barua protocol based on BD-protocol?

3   Explanation of Visual and Push-button chanels could be before
protocol overview.

Eventhough the abbreviations that you are using are clear, it would be
nice if you could write them open when you use them first time
For example: ...Internet Protocol (IP)...

GKA (in abstract), BD, AKE, DH, GDH (in 2.1), CDH (in 2.2), MAC (3)

Generally, you could explain the protocols briefly before you give the
mathematical details. Pictures would be helpful. Pictures would also
make the attack descriptions easier to understand (the pictures you
drew during the presentation were nice).

I found only couple of typos:
2.2 GDH.2, is the one that is use -> is used
2.4 They make some modifications -> They made...
2.5 Burmester-Desmedt protool ->protocol