As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd
Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 20 January 2020.
(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. The type of RFC is indicated in the title page. Proposed
standard is the correct choice since this document defines a new EAP
authentication protocol with several implementations.
(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:
This document specifies a new EAP method called Nimble out-of-band
authentication for EAP (EAP-NOOB). The method makes use of a user-assisted
one-directional OOB message between the peer device and authentication server
to authenticate the in-band key exchange. The peer device must have an input
or output interface, such as a display, microphone, speakers or blinking light,
which can send or receive dynamically generated messages of tens of bytes in
length.
Working Group Summary:
The document had sufficient review and discussion. There is reasonable
consensus for moving the document forward.
Document Quality:
The document has received detailed feedback from Dave Thaler as part of an
early IoT directorate review. The document was also reviewed by experts such as
Alan DeKok, Hannes Tshofenig, and Daniel Migault.
At least three public implementations of the protocol are available:
1. wpa_supplicant - https://github.com/tuomaura/eap-noob
2. contiki - https://github.com/eduingles/coap-eap-noob
3. hostap - https://github.com/Vogeltak/hostap
The protocol has security proofs:
1. Proverif:
https://github.com/tuomaura/eap-noob/tree/master/protocolmodel/proverif 2.
mcrl2: https://github.com/tuomaura/eap-noob/tree/master/protocolmodel/mcrl2
Personnel:
Document Shepherd - Joe Salowey
Responsible AD - Roman Danyliw
(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 shepherd has reviewed the document and believes it is ready for
publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No
(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.
No
(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.
No concerns
(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?
Yes
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No disclosures
(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?
Reasonable consensus within the WG as a whole
(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.)
No
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
No nits
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
NA
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes
(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?
No
(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.
Yes. Most normative references in the document are to published NIST, FIPS, and
standards track RFCs. There are normative references to 3 informational RFCs
(2104, 6234, and 7748) but all three are allowed as noted in the Downref
registry: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/DownrefRegistry
(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.
No.
(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 8126).
IANA section is complete
(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.
Only the EAP-NOOB Message Type registry requires Expert Review for allocation
of new values. The Message Type is a simple integer that identifies the
EAP-NOOB request and response pairs. New integer values for new
request/response pairs can be assigned by experts as and when necessary.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
NA
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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
RFC8342?
NA