Skip to main content

EAP-based Authentication Service for CoAP
draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-10

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ace-chairs@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap@ietf.org, loganaden@gmail.com, paul.wouters@aiven.io, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'EAP-based Authentication Service for CoAP' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-09.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'EAP-based Authentication Service for CoAP'
  (draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-09.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Authentication and Authorization for
Constrained Environments Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Paul Wouters and Roman Danyliw.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document specifies an authentication service that uses the
   Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) transported employing
   Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) messages.  As such, it
   defines an EAP lower layer based on CoAP called CoAP-EAP.  One of the
   main goals is to authenticate a CoAP-enabled IoT device (EAP peer)
   that intends to join a security domain managed by a Controller (EAP
   authenticator).  Secondly, it allows deriving key material to protect
   CoAP messages exchanged between them based on Object Security for
   Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE), enabling the establishment
   of a security association between them.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

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?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Loganaden Velvindron. The
   Responsible Area Director is Paul Wouters.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note