Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1
draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-16

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-rfc7170bis@ietf.org, emu-chairs@ietf.org, emu@ietf.org, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, paul.wouters@aiven.io, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-15.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1'
  (draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-15.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the EAP Method Update 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-emu-rfc7170bis/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document defines the Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol
   (TEAP) version 1.  TEAP is a tunnel-based EAP method that enables
   secure communication between a peer and a server by using the
   Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to establish a mutually
   authenticated tunnel.  Within the tunnel, TLV objects are used to
   convey authentication-related data between the EAP peer and the EAP
   server.  This document obsoletes RFC 7170.

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 Michael Richardson. The
   Responsible Area Director is Paul Wouters.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note