Using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) with Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman over COSE (EDHOC)
draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc-07

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>, draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc@ietf.org, emu-chairs@ietf.org, emu@ietf.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, renzoefra@gmail.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) with Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman over COSE (EDHOC)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc-07.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Using the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) with Ephemeral
   Diffie-Hellman over COSE (EDHOC)'
  (draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc-07.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the EAP Method Update Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Paul Wouters and Deb Cooley.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-edhoc/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748,
   provides a standard mechanism for support of multiple authentication
   methods.  This document specifies the EAP authentication method EAP-
   EDHOC, based on Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC).  EDHOC is
   a lightweight security handshake protocol, enabling authentication
   and establishment of shared secret keys suitable in constrained
   settings.  This document also provides guidance on authentication and
   authorization for EAP-EDHOC.

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 Renzo Navas. The Responsible
   Area Director is Paul Wouters.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note