Shepherd writeup

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,

Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why

is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the

title page header?

Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement

Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent

examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved

documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract 

  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be 

  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract 

  or introduction.

This document defines protocols, procedures, and conventions to be
employed by peers implementing the Generic Security Service
Application Program Interface (GSS-API) when using the EAP mechanism.
Through the GS2 family of mechanisms, these protocols also define how
Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL, RFC 4422)
applications use the Extensible Authentication Protocol.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 

  example, was there controversy about particular points or 

  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 


As "usual" with I-Ds with lots of technical content in the security
area (especially true for GSS-related stuff) there are fewer reviews
than one might want. This document is no better or worse than most 
in this respect.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 

  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 

  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 

  merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 

  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 

  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 

  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 

  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 

  review, on what date was the request posted?

There is one implementation (moonshot project) that spans multiple
platforms. To our knowledge no other implementations exists or are
planned. The one implementation has seen quite a bit of testing 
though expecially for the GSS-layer since lots of opensource 
applications have been modified to support ABFAB/GSS-EAP using moonshot.


  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area


Leif Johansson is sheparding (co-chair)
Stephen Farrell (AD)

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by

the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready

for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to

the IESG.

The document was reviewed by Leif Johansson. The document is ready 
for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or

breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

A thorough security review from the secdir would be nice but make
sure to get somebody that isn't already involved in the work.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from

broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,

DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that

took place.

AAA-doctors review would be useful

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd

has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the

IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable

with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really

is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and

has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those

concerns here.

There are a couple of references that probably should be normative
rather than informative, notably some of the IANA-related drafts
mentioned below. These are relatively miinor nits imo.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR

disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78

and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

We have explicitly asked and confirmed that that there are no IPR claims.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR



(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it 

represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others

being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?   

The consensus seems solid and fairly un-controversial.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 

discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate

email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a

separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this

document. (See and the Internet-Drafts

Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review

criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as

either normative or informative?

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for

advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative

references exist, what is the plan for their completion?


- draft-ietf-emu-chbind (normative - one of the authors of gss-eap is co-author of emu-chbind)

in EMU

- draft-abfab-arch (informative)

in ABFAB being actively worked on by the WG

- draft-ietf-krb-wg-gss-cb-hash-agility 

the author is sheparding this document so it is probably a "safe" dependency.

- draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions

the dependency is optional but normative if used (cf section 7.4)

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the

Last Call procedure. 


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any

existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed

in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not

listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the

part of the document where the relationship of this document to the

other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,

explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations

section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the

document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes

are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.

Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly

identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a

detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that

allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a

reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document establishes a number of IANA registries. One such registry
(the RFC4121 token identifiers registry in section 7.2) which depends on
the timely creation of a "Kerberos V GSS-API Mechanism Parameters" registry
under which this registry is subordinate.

The document also includes a radius attribute assignment which must be
acted on by IANA where there is a normative dependency on 

Finally there is a registration of a GSS-EAP SASL mech for a specific 

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future

allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find

useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

- RFC4121 token identifiers (section 7.2)
- GSS EAP Subtoken Types (section 7.3)

Suggested experts include, Sam Hartmans, Nico Williams, Simon Josefsson,
Rhys Smith, Alexey Melnikov

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document

Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal

language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

- validated GSSAPI-Token PDU at for syntax 
- validated mech name ABNF against