EAP Method Update
charter-ietf-emu-06

• Ready for external review (04-00)
• Approve (04-00)
• Ready for external review (05-01)
• Approve (05-02)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Yes

(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) Yes

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) Yes

Milestones are likely to change (dates, etc.), but aligns with the charter.  Jari's time was limited, so I helped and he will adjust.

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

Substantive:

First bullet point: "or other new concerns." makes this very open ended. Is this planned to be a standing working group? If not, can we put some constraints around "other new concerns"?

The prohibition against obsoleting RFCs seems harsh. It's possible to require backwards compatibility without this restriction. I think it should be up to the working group to decide whether work can be better organized using updates or bis-drafts.

 The Feb 2019 milestone seems like two milestones.


Editorial:

-3rd paragraph: "And the
understanding of security threats in today's Internet evolves as
well,..."

I suggest dropping "And"

-- 2nd bullet: This is a bit hard to parse. I suggest:

OLD:
    Update the EAP-AKA' specification (RFC 5448) to ensure that its
     capability to provide a cryptographic binding to network context
     stays in sync with what updates may come to the referenced 3GPP
     specifications through the use of EAP in 5G.
NEW:
     Update the EAP-AKA' specification (RFC 5448) to ensure that its
     capability to provide a cryptographic binding to network context
     stays in sync with any 5G related updates to the referenced 3GPP
     specifications.

Same bullet point: The second paragraph seems out of place; was it intended to be its own bullet point?

4th bullet point: The second sentence seems like a non-sequiter. I suggest a top-level bullet point for "Analyzing opportunities to improve privacy..."

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

I would actually rather like to see milestones for when the work is supposed to be finished (send to IESG for publication) than when it is supposed to start (wg adoption) as the first is probably harder to achieve in time than the second.

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

Is 

"This working group has been chartered to provide updates to some
commonly used EAP method."

really singular? Or should it be "commonly used EAP methods"?

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection