The eap.arpa domain and EAP provisioning
draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2025-01-29
|
06 | (System) | Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed) |
2025-01-29
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2025-01-29
|
06 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa-06.txt |
2025-01-29
|
06 | Alan DeKok | New version approved |
2025-01-29
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2025-01-29
|
06 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2025-01-28
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alan DeKok, Paul Wouters (IESG state changed) |
2025-01-28
|
05 | Paul Wouters | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2025-01-02
|
05 | Peter Yee | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Of those active in the WG, there was broad agreement to advance this ancillary specification. Perhaps more telling, there’s already another (Standards Track) draft that makes use of this specification. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. All points raised during the discussion were addressed satisfactorily. The author has been quick to make requested changes with little pushback. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) No one has expressed any discontent. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This is an ancillary document in so much as it specifies the contents of an EAP NAI and an IANA registry for those values. Thus, the implementations of this specification are embodied in the implementation of specific EAP methods. It is already compatible with existing EAP implementations. Those implementations will not, of course, reference this specification, but the WIP draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls does reference this draft and use its IANA NAI registry. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. This specification defines one way to organize the contents of the EAP NAI field, which is used by EAP methods. Those methods are primarily specified in the IETF in the EMU WG. The EAP method defined by Wi-Fi Alliance for HotSpot 2.0 does not conflict with this draft. Since the specification only defines the previously unspecified and unused eap.arpa realm, it should not impact any other EAP method of which we are not already aware. EAP methods are not required to use NAI conventions described in this draft. Overall, it is not believed that external review is merited. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document has several requests of IANA. The first is registration of eap.arpa in the .ARPA Zone Management registry. That matter was previously discussed with Mirja Kühlewind and we believe the IAB would be amenable to this registration as the relevant body for .arpa registrations. A new registry called the “Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Registry” is established with Expert Review required to add to it. That will be done with the concurrence of the IESG and the attendant publication of this specification. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? There is no YANG module in this specification. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. None of the document is written in a formal language. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? The document shepherd asserts this to be the case. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The document is subject to the issues listed for the Security Area. The Security Considerations in the document address those concerns that are believed to be relevant. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard. The document specifies a provisioning domain (eap.arpa) for use in certain EAP methods, many of which are Standards Track themselves. Given the domain registration requested and so that new EAP methods don’t have to use a downref to an Informational document, Proposed Standard seems logical. The Datatracker state attributes reflect the proposed status. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. It is not believed that the establishment of an IANA registry and the creation of a .arpa domain name have any IPR concerns. The author has also submitted a statement (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/N7dMRn88jTGsqYoxH0lfKLZGtms/) of not being aware of any relevant IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. There’s only one author and he would like to see this document published. (See above link to that statement.) 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) The document does pass idnits. Regarding the content guidelines, the draft is appropriately named. All required sections are present in the draft. There is a Privacy Concerns section, but not an Implementation Status section, both being optional and the latter being somewhat irrelevant. (See item #4.) Regarding language and style, the draft meets the requirements of the style guide, expands abbreviations appropriately, does not misrepresent its status, adheres to BCP 14, does not use non-inclusive language, and does not seem to contain stale text. There are no diagrams in the document, nor does it contain any use of formal language. The document looks fine in regard to the protocol checklist. Use of example domain names in the draft make correct use of “example.com” where appropriate. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The split between informative and normative references appears correct. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are freely available. They are all RFCs. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. There are no normative downrefs. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? All normative references are to published RFCs. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. It will update one RFC, but it will not make any change to its status. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The IANA considerations section was reviewed regarding both the .arpa domain registration requested and the new registry created. Both appear correct. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. A new registry for EAP Provisioning Identifiers Registry is created. The instructions to its Designated Experts are clear. (See sections 6.3.1 and 6.5.) [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2025-01-02
|
05 | Peter Yee | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2025-01-02
|
05 | Peter Yee | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2025-01-02
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Paul Wouters (IESG state changed) |
2025-01-02
|
05 | Peter Yee | Responsible AD changed to Paul Wouters |
2025-01-02
|
05 | Peter Yee | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2025-01-02
|
05 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa-05.txt |
2025-01-02
|
05 | Alan DeKok | New version approved |
2025-01-02
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2025-01-02
|
05 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2025-01-01
|
04 | Peter Yee | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Of those active in the WG, there was broad agreement to advance this ancillary specification. Perhaps more telling, there’s already another (Standards Track) draft that makes use of this specification. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. All points raised during the discussion were addressed satisfactorily. The author has been quick to make requested changes with little pushback. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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.) No one has expressed any discontent. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This is an ancillary document in so much as it specifies the contents of an EAP NAI and an IANA registry for those values. Thus, the implementations of this specification are embodied in the implementation of specific EAP methods. It is already compatible with existing EAP implementations. Those implementations will not, of course, reference this specification, but the WIP draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls does reference this draft and use its IANA NAI registry. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. This specification defines one way to organize the contents of the EAP NAI field, which is used by EAP methods. Those methods are primarily specified in the IETF in the EMU WG. The EAP method defined by Wi-Fi Alliance for HotSpot 2.0 does not conflict with this draft. Since the specification only defines the previously unspecified and unused eap.arpa realm, it should not impact any other EAP method of which we are not already aware. EAP methods are not required to use NAI conventions described in this draft. Overall, it is not believed that external review is merited. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document has several requests of IANA. The first is registration of eap.arpa in the .ARPA Zone Management registry. That matter was previously discussed with Mirja Kühlewind and we believe the IAB would be amenable to this registration as the relevant body for .arpa registrations. A new registry called the “Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Registry” is established with Expert Review required to add to it. That will be done with the concurrence of the IESG and the attendant publication of this specification. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? There is no YANG module in this specification. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. None of the document is written in a formal language. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? The document shepherd asserts this to be the case. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The document is subject to the issues listed for the Security Area. The Security Considerations in the document address those concerns that are believed to be relevant. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard. The document specifies a provisioning domain (eap.arpa) for use in certain EAP methods, many of which are Standards Track themselves. Given the domain registration requested and so that new EAP methods don’t have to use a downref to an Informational document, Proposed Standard seems logical. The Datatracker state attributes reflect the proposed status. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. It is not believed that the establishment of an IANA registry and the creation of a .arpa domain name have any IPR concerns. The author has also submitted a statement (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/N7dMRn88jTGsqYoxH0lfKLZGtms/) of not being aware of any relevant IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. There’s only one author and he would like to see this document published. (See above link to that statement.) 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) The document does pass idnits. Regarding the content guidelines, the draft is appropriately named. All required sections are present in the draft. There is a Privacy Concerns section, but not an Implementation Status section, both being optional and the latter being somewhat irrelevant. (See item #4.) Regarding language and style, the draft meets the requirements of the style guide, expands abbreviations appropriately, does not misrepresent its status, adheres to BCP 14, does not use non-inclusive language, and does not seem to contain stale text. There are no diagrams in the document, nor does it contain any use of formal language. The document looks fine in regard to the protocol checklist. Use of example domain names in the draft make correct use of “example.com” where appropriate. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. The split between informative and normative references appears correct. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are freely available. They are all RFCs. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. There are no normative downrefs. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? All normative references are to published RFCs. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. It will update one RFC, but it will not make any change to its status. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The IANA considerations section was reviewed regarding both the .arpa domain registration requested and the new registry created. Both appear correct. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. A new registry for EAP Provisioning Identifiers Registry is created. The instructions to its Designated Experts are clear. (See sections 6.3.1 and 6.5.) [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2025-01-01
|
04 | Peter Yee | Notification list changed to peter@akayla.com because the document shepherd was set |
2025-01-01
|
04 | Peter Yee | Document shepherd changed to Peter E. Yee |
2025-01-01
|
04 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa-04.txt |
2025-01-01
|
04 | Alan DeKok | New version approved |
2025-01-01
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2025-01-01
|
04 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2024-11-07
|
03 | Peter Yee | Added to session: IETF-121: emu Tue-1800 |
2024-11-04
|
03 | Peter Yee | Small but entirely positive feedback received. |
2024-11-04
|
03 | Peter Yee | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2024-10-07
|
03 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa-03.txt |
2024-10-07
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-10-07
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2024-10-07
|
03 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2024-09-11
|
02 | Peter Yee | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2024-08-12
|
02 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa-02.txt |
2024-08-12
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-08-12
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok |
2024-08-12
|
02 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2024-07-30
|
01 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa-01.txt |
2024-07-30
|
01 | Alan DeKok | New version approved |
2024-07-30
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alan DeKok , emu-chairs@ietf.org |
2024-07-30
|
01 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |
2024-06-14
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | This document now replaces draft-dekok-emu-eap-arpa instead of None |
2024-06-13
|
00 | Peter Yee | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2024-06-13
|
00 | Peter Yee | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2024-06-13
|
00 | Alan DeKok | New version available: draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa-00.txt |
2024-06-13
|
00 | Peter Yee | WG -00 approved |
2024-06-13
|
00 | Alan DeKok | Set submitter to "Alan DeKok ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: emu-chairs@ietf.org |
2024-06-13
|
00 | Alan DeKok | Uploaded new revision |